Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... vs Smt. Gursharan Kaur And Another on 20 November, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No.13035 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13035 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on : 20-11-2012
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another
....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Smt. Gursharan Kaur and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Behl, Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J The solitary dispute that is raised in the instant petition by impugning the order passed by the Ombudsman is that respondent no.1 was indulging in manufacturing activity in the premises in question and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of a connection which is known as NRS connection rather he should have operated with MS connection intended for manufacturing activity; which fact has not been appreciated by the Ombudsman.
According to the petitioners on a checking done on 21.5.2007 the premises of the petitioner which consists of an industrial shed and some shops, manufacturing activity was detected and therefore, they clubbed the two connections (NRS and MS connections) and burdened respondent no.1 with a liability to pay ` 4,80,943/-. This was questioned by respondent no.1 which ultimately led to the passing of the order by Ombudsman who accepted the plea of respondent no.1 and negated the prayer of the petitioners. The dispute centres around a fact as to whether respondent CWP No.13035 of 2011 (O&M) 2 no.1 is engaged in the manufacturing activity or not so as to make him liable for the amount determined by the petitioners. If the checking report is to be seen which is on record as Annexure P-2 it does not reveal any such fact and rather the official concerned had written "in this compound no commercial work is being done on this meter, electricity is used for auto parts". Learned counsel for the petitioners would make much of the words which have been referred to above to contend that it amounts to an acknowledgement that manufacturing activity is going on in the premises. However, I do not find any substance in this contention as report does not in any way directly or indirectly suggest the carrying out of a manufacturing activity so as to justify the stand taken by the petitioner. Therefore, impugned order of the Ombudsman seems to be well reasoned and hence, does not warrant any interference.
Dismissed.
November 20, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge