SAROJ RANI vs STATE OF HARYANA

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 136 CWP-16499-2026 Date of Decision: 25.05.2026 SAROJ RANI …Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Vashisht, DAG Haryana Mr. Akshay Kumar Dahiya, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of LL-1 checking report dated 16.10.2015. He is further seeking setting aside of demand notice dated 19.10.2015 of ₹33,46,743/- as well as compounding charges of ₹6,60,000/-. 2. As per pleadings, the respondent raised demand of ₹33,46,743/- under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against M/s Durga Rice and General Mills wherein petitioner’s husband was one of the partners. The partners unsuccessfully filed suit which was followed by appeal. The respondent issued compounding notice as well. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.05.26 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petition may be disposed of in te