Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tilak Dhari vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 January, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
Civil Writ Petition No.951 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.951 of 2013
Date of Decision:17.1.2013
Tilak Dhari ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
***
Present: Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Assessment Notice No.1762 dated 11.10.2010 amounting to Rs 43,851/- (Annexure P-2) and impugned notice No.1763 dated 11.10.2010 for compounding of offence amounting to Rs 20,000/- (Annexure P-3).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the impugned assessment, he had filed a complaint in the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. At the stage of appeal, the petitioner's claims have been rejected on the ground of pursuing in a wrong forum. This has led to substantial delay in availing the regular remedy under Section 126 of Civil Writ Petition No.951 of 2013 2 the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short "the Act"). The limitation prescribed under the Act is seven days for preferring an appeal. That period has expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the learned Single Bench in CWP No.19841 of 2012 decided on 5.10.2012 ( titled Balwan Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others) to contend that by pursuing a remedy in a wrong forum, a valuable right has been jeopardized inasmuch as in case the petitioner files an appeal, it would be rejected on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has been assessed to pay a sum of Rs 63851/-. To avail the remedy of appeal, prior deposit of 60% is mandated by Section 127 of the Act.
In view of the circumstances, it is directed that in case the petitioner deposits 50% of the liability alongwith his appeal, his appeal would be decided on merits. In case the appeal is filed with the deposit, the electricity connection which has been disconnected shall be restored pending appeal.
Disposed of with the above terms.
( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA ) JUDGE 17.1.2013 rajeev