CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4414 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4414 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 2, 2011 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam .....Petitioner VERSUS Appellate Authority, Operation Circle, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Panipat and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two petition Nos.4414 and 4415 of 2009. Respondent No.2 was having an electricity meter account No.LS-21, with the sanctioned load of 69.172 KW and a contract demand of 77 KVA. On 7.12.2006, respondent No.2 sent a letter to the petitioner requesting that during the process of shifting of meter to the new room, some labour worker happened to break the outer seal by accident. The then SDO, Samalkha, alongwith CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4414 of 2009 -2- AEE/MNP Division U.H.V.B.N., Karnal, visited and found the seal broken. SDO had categorically mentioned in the letter dated 8.12.2006 that C.T. Chamber seals and meter cubical seals were found broken but however, no foul play was suspected. After 25 days, a report was made, noticing that the consumers had requested to shift the meter to new meter room and C.T Chamber seals and meter cubical seals had broken. SDO was requested to take load survey and temper data. Respondent Staff had then visited the premises on 12.1.2007 and had taken load survey. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer alongwith Xen and SDO, Samalkha, visited the site but the supply to the Institution was disconnected arbitrarily on 11.1.2007. It is only thereafter on the basis of a load survey that the provisional order of assessment dated 25.1.2007 was received and the penalty of `3,73,925/- was assessed. This order has now been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. My attention has been invited to the impugned order, where it has been clearly observed that the seal was broken due to an accident, which was reported to the SDO Samalakha, who had checked the premises for further action. He had clearly mentioned at that stage that there was no foul play suspected and no new seal was provided. However, he informed the above facts to XEN/ M&P. Thereafter, AEE/M&P came and visited the premises on 4.1.2007 i.e. after 28 days, but did not record any adverse remarks. Respondent was advised by AEE/M&P to act in accordance with sales circular. Neither load survey was taken nor any action initiated for disconnection of electric supply because no foul play towards CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4414 of 2009 -3- theft of energy was found. The action of the assessment of the amount in this background from the SE 'OP' by the respondent after being directed by the XEN/ OP to intimate the theft case, was not found justified. The appellate authority has noticed that the broken seals was not detected by them or any investigating team. Respondent No.2 had voluntarily informed the appellant. The appellate authority, accordingly, found that the action of the petitioner to challenge this on account of theft, is not justified. The observations made by the appellate authority are well supported by the pleadings on record and do not call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. May 02, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE