IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12032of 2008 Date of decision: March 26, 2009. Nachhatar Singh ...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 Amandeep Singh Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.4.2007 whereby his appeal against the order dated 7.9.2006 imposing a penalty of Rs.1,20,000/- by the PSEB authorities, has been upheld. The only ground putforth by the petitioner is that since the meter stated to have tampered with by him was removed from the premises on 6.9.2004, he is liable to be penalized as per the rates of penalty prevailing on that day. The respondents, on other hand, appears to have imposed the penalty on the premise that the meter was got checked in the ME Lab at Bhatinda on 1.9.2006 and as such the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty as per the rates in vogue in the year 2006. The Superintending Engineer, Distribution Division, Bhatinda has made certain recommendations vide his memo dated 14.7.2007 (Annexure P-3) to the Chief Engineer (Commercial) in favour of the petitioner. No decision appears to have been taken by the later authority on those recommendations. The respondents are required to take a conscious decision as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay penalty as per the rates prevailing at the time when the meter was removed from his premises on 6.9.2004 or at the rates which were operative on 1.9.2006 when the meter was checked in ME Lab. A final decision to that effect shall be taken by the competent authority within a period of three months. Meanwhile, the petitioner may deposit the penalty amount though without prejudice to his legal rights and in case it is found that he is liable to a lesser penalty, the excess payment, if any, made by him shall be adjusted against the future bills. Disposed of. Dasti. March 26, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge