ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. GURJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing award dtd. 2/6/2016, Annexure P-5, petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Moga, for short "PLA(PUS)",.

(2.) Factual matrix, leading to the filing of the petition, is that respondent No.1 had purchased a residential house alongwith an electric connection. On 15/5/2014, she deposited Rs.650.00 and got the electric connection changed to her name and a new connection bearing No.25/444 was allotted to her. Vide Memo No.1551 dtd. 16/10/2014, petitioners raised a demand of Rs.59,608.00, besides, Rs.18,000.00 as compounding charges alleging that respondent No.1 had tampered with the meter and committed theft of electricity. Respondent No.1 claims that the old electricity meter was changed in her absence and was not properly packed. It was inspected in the Meters and Equipment Laboratory (M.E. Lab) in her absence and she was never associated with the inspection. She deposited the demanded amount under protest and sent a letter dtd. 3/11/2014 pointing out that the demand notice had been issued in violation of the electricity supply instructions, but no response was received. She filed an application under Sec. 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (for short "1987 Act") before PLA(PUS) and when the parties could not reach at a settlement, vide impugned award, Annexure P-5, demand was set aside and the petitioners were directed to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit.

(3.) Without going into the merits of the dispute, counsel for the petitioners has raised an argument that PLA (PUS) did not have the jurisdiction under Sec. 22-C of the 1987 Act to determine a dispute pertaining to theft of electricity.