S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
9. The appellant has tried to project a legal proposition to
say that the discretion conferred upon the executive authorities must
be exercised within clearly defined limits. In other words, the
appellant contends that the respondent-board acted with arbitrary
power and the discretion vested in it has not been exercised
judiciously. Reliance is placed upon AIR 1967 SC 1427 titled S.G.
Jaisinghani vs. Union of India and others. The facts of the cited
judgment were wholly on different pedestal. It is true that the
discretion has to be exercised on sound principles and should satisfy
judicial conscience. The impugned action of the respondent-board
was in confirmity with the rule and procedure. The perception in a
given case cannot be made to say that a theft of energy would
require prior notice to the person making theft. Moreover the theft
ANITA DEVI
was detected from independent feeder of none else but the
2014.12.09 10:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
LPA No.1938 of 2014 (O&M) 8
appellant. No fault could be pointed out against the mechanism of
fraud detection, so adopted by the department, which was the only
workable solution in the lights of the facts and circumstances of the
case particularly when meter installations in the premises were
situated about half a kilometre from the main entrance of the factory
and the process of switching over the energy load from meter to
generator sets hardly takes few seconds.