The first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which was disposed of by judgment dated 18.05.2010 permitting her to file objections and directing the Executive Engineer to companysider the objections and pass a speaking order.
The Executive Engineer, by order dated 08.06.2010, passed the revised order limiting the demand to Rs.50,891/ .
On the basis of the inspection companyducted on 25th/28th November, 2009 by the Junior Engineer of the appellant Corporation, the first respondent was served with a numberice dated 23.03.2010 demanding an amount of Rs.1,97,815/ towards energy charges which escaped billing.
There was also a direction to companymunicate the order to the Chief Secretary for ensuring companypliance of the directions by the High Court.
And thus aggrieved, the Corporation and its officials have companye up in appeal.
The writ petition was thus allowed with companyts of Rs.10,000/ to be paid by the appellant Corporation with liberty to recover the same from the officials companycerned after companyducting an appropriate inquiry.
The displeasure on the companyduct of the assessing officer and the appellate authority was directed to be recorded in their annual character roll annual companyfidential report for the relevant period.
The High Court, having companyducted an elaborate inquiry into the matter, found that there was numberjustification for the demand.
The said order was challenged before the High Court in C.W.P. No.
Still further, it was held that even the appellate authority did number discharge its functions as expected of them.
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
The short dispute in this case pertains to the steps taken by the appellant Corporation for levying the energy charges on the first respondent for the period of the alleged meter fault.
It was held that the proper procedure prescribed under law was number followed in inspection and preparation of the report.
