1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (109)

CWP-32869-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision:- 08.12.2025 Manoharjit Singh ... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Sawhni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate for the respondents.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL

1. Petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing final order of assessment dated 14.08.2024, Annexure P-11, whereby petitioner has been held liable for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act of 2003”).

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the petition are that petitioner is running an Ice Factory and has an electricity connection with a connected load of 48.53 KW from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). The connection was inspected on 17.11.2010 and a report, Annexure P-2, was prepared. On 19.07.2011, meter change order was issued and the meter was inspected at the Metering Equipment Laboratory (ME Lab) on 01.11.2011. On

2-

the basis of the report, Annexure P-3, a provisional order of assessment dated 03.11.2011, Annexure P-4, was issued under Section 135 of the Act of 2003, whereby petitioner was levied with a demand of Rs.22,35,573/-, besides compounding charges of Rs.4,90,000/-. An FIR dated 06.11.2011, Annexure P-5, was lodged and after investigation, report, Annexure P-6, was submitted by SHO, Police Station Anti Power Theft, which was accepted by the Lok Adalat, Patiala on 08.07.2017, Annexure P-7. Petitioner challenged the assessment order, Annexure P-4, by filing a writ petition, which was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2024, Annexure P-8, and liberty was granted to the respondents to take appropriate steps as per law and regulations. Respondents issued a provisional order of assessment dated 15.07.2024, Annexure P-9, and after considering the objections filed by petitioner, impugned final order of assessment was issued on 14.08.2024, Annexure P-11, whereby petitioner has been found liable to make a payment of Rs.52,938/-.

3. By making a reference to the checking report, Annexure P-3, counsel for the petitioner has argued that as meter was found running slow by 33%, respondents could not have initiated the proceedings for unauthorized use of electricity. Counsel contends that the expression “unauthorized use of electricity” does not include slowness of the meter and impugned demand deserve to be quashed. It is also his argument that a separate procedure has been prescribed by PSPCL for dealing with cases pertaining to slowness of meter. Reliance has been placed by the counsel upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and another Versus State of U.P. and others, Law Finder Doc Id #1787868

3-

4. Writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a short reply, wherein it has been admitted that meter was found running slow. It has been averred that CTPT unit was found to be tempered and provisional assessment was made under Section 135 of the Act of 2003 by following the proper procedure. A stand has been taken that the proceedings under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 have been initiated as this Court had granted liberty to the respondents to take appropriate steps as per the notified regulations. It has been submitted that in pursuance to impugned notice, petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs. 52,938/-. An argument has been raised by counsel for the respondents that as petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section

127 of the Act of 2003, instant writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering their respective submissions, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. A perusal of the checking report, Annexure P-3, shows t