Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And ORS v. Nagar Panchayat, Dhilwan, Distt Kapurthala & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24708-2012 Date of decision : 08.09.2015 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others ...... Petitioners Vs Nagar Panchayat, Dhilwan, District Kapurthala & another ...... Respondents Coram :

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present :

Mr. B.S. Taunque, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Jasvir Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Kapurthala. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order does not contain any reason as it is based upon some statement of one Lower Division Clerk of the petitionerCorporation who had allegedly stated that it is not a case of theft but of overload. It is submitted that the load of the electricity was sanctioned to respondent No.1 for water supply but it was otherwise used for the street lights. It is submitted that as per Section 135(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the respondent is guilty of theft of electricity and it is not a case of overload. It is also submitted that all these aspects have not been considered by the concerned authority while passing the impugned order. SATYAWAN 2015.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CWP-24708-2012 -2On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that they have never used the sanctioned load of electricity for any other purpose.

Be that as it may, the impugned order is silent in this regard and it is based solely upon on the statement of one Lower Division Clerk who alleged to have appeared on behalf of the Electricity Department.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and without assigning any reason. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the same authority for deciding it afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Needless to say that the said authority shall decide the issue by giving cogent reasoning. The parties are directed to appear before the competent authority on 5.10.2015.

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge 08.09.2015 sp SATYAWAN 2015.09.10 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh