BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an ex-serviceman, running a flour mill in the name and style of M/s. Arya Atta Chakki at Sunaria Road, Rohtak since 1996, to earn his livelihood. The premises is having the Commercial supply electricity connection bearing a/c 1826 of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as H.S.E.B.) now known as Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam (hereinafter referred to as H.V.P.N.). On 26-5-1999, the premises of the petitioner were inspected by the officials of H.V.P.N.On checking, theft of energy was detected. The petitioner was held liable to pay compensation assessed at Rs. 72,384/- The electric supply of the petitioner was disconnected on 26-5-1999.

(2.) Although, the petitioner is disputing the liability in order to avoid further harassment, he deposited a sum of Rs. 36,500/-, being 50% of the penalty vide receipt No. 3150 dated 27-5-1999. For the remaining amount, the petitioner was prepared to furnish bank guarantee. Having received 50% of the penalty amount, FIR No. 437 dated 1-6-99 under Section 379, IPC and Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 was registered against the petitioner with the police Station City Rohtak. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail which was granted. The petitioner also approached the Civil Court, Rohtak and filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction on 26-9-1999. The application for temporary injunction was also filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to disconnect the electric supply of the petitioner. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rohtak by his order dated 5-7-99 restrained H.V.P.N.from disconnecting the electricity supply. H.V.P.N.thereafter filed an application dated 10-8-99 under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for staying the proceedings in the Civil suit and prayed for referring the dispute in the suit to Chief Engineer (Arbitration) H.S.E.B., Vidyut Nagar, Hisar. From the above, it becomes apparent that the matter is pending either in the civil Court or before the arbitrator.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a policy decision framed by the H.S.E.B./H.V.P.N.The relevant portion reads as under :-