IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3711 of 2009 Date of decision: March 09, 2009. M/s Swani Enterprises Limited ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab State Electricity Board & anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Pradeep Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 7.11.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) against the award- cum-order dated 15.1.2008 of the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab has been accepted and the demand raised by the PSEB against the petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,35,375/-, on the basis of checking carried out by the MMTS on 31.10.1990, 4.10.1991, 4.11.1992, 4.11.1993 and 16.8.1994, has been upheld. The petitioner – industry has got large scale industrial electricity connection No.LS-5. Based upon the MMTS checking reports dated 31.10.1990, 4.10.1991, 4.11.1992, 4.11.1993 and 16.8.1994 made by the Senior Executive Engineer, MMTS, that the petitioner was served with a notice dated 16.8.1996 asking it to deposit the aforesaid amount as its meter was found running slow and a case of power theft was made out against it. The additional bill was raised on the basis of the power factor assessed by the Chief Engineer, Commercial on 15.4.1996. Notwithstanding an express provision contained in Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 in terms whereof the petitioner could have approached the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab against the demand notice, it preferred to file a civil suit which was dismissed by the learned civil court vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2001. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 3.4.2004 to the extent that the PSEB authorities were restrained from disconnecting the petitioner's connection but with liberty to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the prescribed procedure as the judgment did not “intend to exonerate the plaintiff of the matter”. The Board then raised a dispute under Section 26(6) of the 1910 Act which was decided by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Punjab in the petitioner's favour, suffice it to say on flimsy grounds. The Chief Electrical Inspector observed that he alone being the statutory authority to decide the matters pertaining to defective meters, PSEB authorities ought to have approached him at the earliest; the inspection reports produced were either illegible or vague and that the procedure of testing of large supply consumers' meters/equipments as prescribed in the PSEB commercial circular No.14/87 dated 25.3.1987 has not been followed; the meter in dispute could not be produced on 21.8.2007 for joint testing or thereafter; the method of calculation of KWH consumption by conversion as followed by PSEB is also defective. It is further observed that since the meter was found running in order from 1994 onwards, no demand could be raised for the period from 1994 to 1996. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and on perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The Chief Electrical Inspector completely misdirected himself in observing that it was the PSEB authorities who ought to have initiated proceedings under Section 26(6) of 1910 Act at the earliest. Suffice it to say that it was the petitioner who was aggrieved against the demand notice. Instead of approaching the Chief Electrical Inspector, the petitioner rushed to the civil court where the matter remained pending for over eight years. During this long period, the carbon copies of the demand notices were bound to get delible/fading impression. The fact that some of the reports were not legible, was no ground to draw an adverse inference against the respondent-authorities. Suffice it to say that the demand was raised against the petitioner on the basis of more than one checking report made by different officers/engineers. No motive has been attributed to them nor it is the petitioner's case that any one wanted to harass it for extraneous considerations. The view formed by the appellate authority, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is plausible one and warrants no interference by this Court. Dismissed. March 9, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge