IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 1166 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 27.01.2009 SDO, Chandigarh ...Petitioner versus H. K. Sethi and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. H. S. Giani, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This Civil Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), U.T Chandigarh. Vide the aforesaid order, a bill raised by the petitioner for recovery of Rs.10950/- as sundry charges, has been set aside. The facts giving rise to the controversy and as noticed by the Lok Adalat, are as follows : The respondent-applicant purchased House No. 138/2, Sector – 45/A, Chandigarh in the year 2004 by way of a Sub General Power of Attorney. He has been getting power supply from the petitioner-department against account NO. 409/4501/ 013802P. The respondent-applicant received a bill dated 19.03.2008 which included the sundry charges of Rs.10950/- added therein. On inquiry, the respondent-applicant came to know that there were two electricity connections in the name of the original owner of the house, namely, Bimal Krishan and the C.W.P NO. 1166 OF 2009 -2- disputed amount pertains to another account No. 409/ 4501/ 013820. Since the previous owner has defaulted in making payment in respect of the above mentioned another account, the un-paid amount has been transferred to the applicant's account No. 409/4501/013802P as sundry charges. The above stated demand raised by the petitioner has been set aside by the Permanent Lok Adalat, inter-alia, on the ground that the defaulting account was permanently disconnected in September, 2004. The petitioner purchased the house through a Sub General Power of Attorney on September 28, 2004. It can, thus, be legitimately inferred that the petitioner never consumed any electricity through the defaulting account. The Permanent Lok Adalat has further held that in view of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, no amount due from any consumer can be recovered after a period of two years from the date when such sum becomes due unless the same has been continuously shown as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of Permanent Lok Adalat. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the impugned order, I am satisfied that no case to interfere with the same is made out. The Permanent Lok Adalat, on appreciation of the material on record, has arrived at a finding of fact that the petitioner purchased the subject house by way of Sub General Power of Attorney on C.W.P NO. 1166 OF 2009 -3- 28.09.2004. It is also not in dispute that the defaulting account was permanently disconnected by the petitioner in September, 2004. It has, thus, been rightly assumed that the respondent- applicant never got electricity supply through the defaulting account and the non-payment, if any, is by the previous owner only. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid amount has been first time shown as sundry charges in the bill served upon the petitioner in March, 2008. The Permanent Lok Adalat appears to be right in observing that the liability of the previous owner Bimal Krishan could not be fastened upon the petitioner at this belated stage and in the manner, noticed above. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the disputed amount has been duly reflected by the petitioner in their ledger book/account book, therefore, the petitioner-department is entitled to recover the same from the original owner-Bimal Krishan. Needless to say that the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, does not preclude the petitioner from recovering the disputed amount from the original owner Bimal Krishan, if so permissible in law. For the reasons afore stated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. JANUARY 27, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE