Skip to content


Present: Mr. Charanji Lal Advocate Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Present: Mr. Charanji Lal Advocate

Respondent

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others

Excerpt:


.....that the petitioner had already deposited rs.77328/- which is 50% of the assessed amount. he has further contended that the assessment is under challenge before this court and if ultimately decision is made in her favour she will be greatly prejudiced, if the proceedings in the fir continue meanwhile. it is further contended that the fir has been lodged on 16.09.2013 whereas the amount had already been deposited on 13.05.2013 and it appears that the fir has been lodged due to ignorance of this fact. in view of the contentions, it is directed that the proceedings arising out of fir no.1852 dated 16.09.2013 registered under section 135 of the electricity act shall remain stayed till further orders.(harinder singh sidhu) judge june 16, 2014 nitin nitin 2014.06.30 14:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Judgment:


CWP No.28391 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.28391 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: June 16, 2014 Smt.

Sulochana Devi ......Petitioner versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr.Charanji Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.

(ORAL) C.M No.7216 of 2014 Allowed as prayed for.

CWP No.28391 of 2013 This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the assessment order dated 04.03.2013 under Section 135 and 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short Electricity Act).This petition came up for hearing on 20.12.2013 when this Court issued notice of motion for 07.02.2014.

At that time it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that he had deposited 50% amount and hence no FIR was lodged but her electric supply was disconnected.

This Court while issuing notice of motion had directed the respondent-authorities to restore electricity connection of the petitioner, subject to payment of `20,000/-.

Nitin 2014.06.30 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.28391 of 2013 -2- Counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per Annexure P-2, notice had been issued to the petitioner for compounding the offence of theft of electricity under Section 135 and Section 152 of the Electricity Act and the details of the amount of compounding was given in the said notice and the actual amount is Rs.28,000/-.

He further submitted that the petitioner had already deposited Rs.77328/- which is 50% of the assessed amount.

He has further contended that the assessment is under challenge before this Court and if ultimately decision is made in her favour she will be greatly prejudiced, if the proceedings in the FIR continue meanwhile.

It is further contended that the FIR has been lodged on 16.09.2013 whereas the amount had already been deposited on 13.05.2013 and it appears that the FIR has been lodged due to ignorance of this fact.

In view of the contentions, it is directed that the proceedings arising out of FIR No.1852 dated 16.09.2013 registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act shall remain stayed till further ordeRs.(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) JUDGE June 16, 2014 nitin Nitin 2014.06.30 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //