Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition to lay challenge to order dated 05.03.2008 (P-8), whereby respondent No. 2 has raised demand of Rs. 8,25,969/-, towards penalty, from the petitioner. Further challenge is to the order dated 04.07.2008 (P-9), vide which respondent No. 1 dismissed appeal, filed by the petitioner. 2. In the month of October/November 2006, use of electricity by the petitioner, during prohibited period (Peak Load Hours) and weekly off days, was detected, after looking into printouts, downloaded from electric meter, installed in the premises of the petitioner. Notice was issued to the petitioner, to pay penalty, as per Rules. On request made by the petitioner, detail, regarding misuse and amount claimed, was furnished. Against demand raised, petitioner went to Zonal Level Disputes Settlement Committee at Patiala. Their representation was rejected. Petitioner approached Electricity Grievances Redressal Forum at Patiala and vide order dated 19.12.2007, taking note of wrong calculations, in determining amount of penalty, appeal, filed by the petitioner, was partly allowed and the respondent No. 2 was directed to recalculate amount claimed from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner received notice dated 05.03.2008 (P-8), for payment of an amount of Rs. Rs. 8,25,969/-. In the meantime, petitioner also filed an appeal before respondent No. 1, which was dismissed, vide order dated 04.07.2008 (P-9). 3. Upon notice, reply was filed by respondent No. 2, wherein, to claim penalty amount from the petitioner, it was mentioned as under :- "That Sr. XEN/MMTS, Zirakpur, downloaded the date of the meter of the above said connection on 13.06.2006 and 07.08.2006. After scrutiny of the printout of DDL dated 13.06.2006 it was found that the petitioner had violated Peal Load Hour Restrictions (hereinafter referred to as PLHR), whereas from the printout of DDL dated 07.08.2006 it was found that the petitioner had violated PLHRs as well as Weekly Off Days (hereinafter referred to as WOD) restrictions. Sr. XEN/MMTS, Zirakpur vide his letter No. 1171/73 dated 31.10.2006 and letter No. 1215/17 dated 31.11.2006 calculated the penalty amount. Copies of the same demand notices are attached as Annexure P-1 and P- 2. As per instructions laid down in ESR No. 168.1.1 a rebate of load of 150 KW for three induction furnaces (50KW for each induction furnace) had been given to the petitioner while calculating the penalty amount. Copies of the same demand notices are attached as Annexure P-1 and P- 2. As per instructions laid down in ESR No. 168.1.1 a rebate of load of 150 KW for three induction furnaces (50KW for each induction furnace) had been given to the petitioner while calculating the penalty amount. Copy of the ESR No. 168.1.1 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 for the kind perusal of this Honble Court. The details of the penalty are as under :- Date of DDL Penalty for PLHRs Penalty for WODs Total penalty 13.6.06 Rs. 38,583/- --- Rs. 38,583/- 07/08/06 Rs. 13,19,400/- Rs. 29,825/- Rs. 13,49,325/- Grand Total Rs. 13,87,908/- 4 It has come on record that fixing of Peak Load Hours was intimated by respondent No. 2, to the consumers, vide notice dated 06.07.2006 (P-3). Vide notice mentioned above, the CS consumers were intimated that they should observe Peak Load Hours restriction between 19.30 P.M. To 04.30 A.M.. Before the Forums below and in this Court also, it is primary grievance of the petitioner that notice Annexure P-3 was not received by it. Respondent No. 2 rejected contention raised by the petitioner, by observing as under :- "On the security of the documents and the service register, if find that the instructions issued by XEN, Dera Bassi dated 6.7.2006 are in two parts. The first part is addressed to two induction furnace consumers who fall under the jurisdiction of the Power Controller, Patiala, intimating that the furnaces shall be closed till further order and not up to 13th July, as stated by the petitioner. The second part is addressed to all the LS consumer including the petitioner with its units that the peak load hours shall be observed from 19.30 P.M. To 4.30 A.M. Under the first part, the intimation has been signed by representative of M/s Sada Shiv Castings and in the second part of the notice the signatures of the same representative are affixed at Sr. Nos.21, 22, 23 for the three units of the appellant company. The service of instructions of 6.7.2006 was effected by one lineman Sh. Jagdeep Singh. From records of the respondents produced before the ZLDSC, I find that the petitioner never put any request to cross examine the Lineman Sh. Jagdeep Singh who testified that instructions were served on the representative of the consumer. The service of instructions of 6.7.2006 was effected by one lineman Sh. Jagdeep Singh. From records of the respondents produced before the ZLDSC, I find that the petitioner never put any request to cross examine the Lineman Sh. Jagdeep Singh who testified that instructions were served on the representative of the consumer. The appellant company has relied on the case of M/s Contour Automotive who supposedly were also not served with the notice to observe extended PLRHs with effect from 6.7.2006 and have committed the similar peak load violations/weekly off days. The petitioner submitted a list of the committed violations of PLHRs by M/s. Contour Automotive but failed to file any supporting documents or lead corroborative evidence to prove his assertions of nonservice of instructions on 6.7.0006 on them." 5. This Court feels that finding given above is perfectly justified. Use of electricity, during prohibited period (Peak Load Hours) and on weekly off days, is admitted by the petitioner. It is also on record that after 06.07.2006, petitioner had violated instructions regarding Peak Load Hours, on 14.07.2006, 20.07.2006, 21.07.2006, 26.07.2006 and onwards. Facts given in documents Annexures P-1 and P-2 clearly indicate that notice, regarding Peak Load Hours, was within knowledge of the petitioner. After issuance of notice on 06.07.2006, unit was not run, during Peak Load Hours, for more 7 days, this fact indicates in that regard. 6. Be that as it may, there is no explanation whatsoever, for running the factory on weekly off days. It is also an admitted fact that weekly off days were being observed by the petitioner, for the last so many years. The petitioner had also deposited entire amount of penalty. Before this Court, no explanation has been furnished for committing the violation, as alleged against the petitioner. 7. No case is made out for interference. 8. Dismissed.