C.M.No.7066-C of 2011 in R.S.A. No.2558 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.7066-C of 2011 in R.S.A. No.2558 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 4, 2011 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another .....Appellants v. M/s.Bhola Nath Rice Land .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.7066-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.2558 of 2011 Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the impugned notice issued vide memo No.3097 dated 29.7.2008 demanding `54,350/- on account of development charges is illegal, null and void and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to refund the said amount of `54,350/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. However, in appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff, judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was reversed and the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed. Appellant-defendant has filed the present C.M.No.7066-C of 2011 in R.S.A. No.2558 of 2011(O&M) -2- regular second appeal against impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully. Admitted facts are that electricity connection was released in favour of respondent-plaintiff by present appellants in the year 2004 vide account no.LS-81. There is also no dispute that at that time, whatever amount was demanded by present appellants, the same was paid by respondent-plaintiff. There is also no dispute that respondent-plaintiff has been paying regularly the electricity charges. However, impugned notice was issued for the first time demanding `54,350/- as alleged development charges on 29.7.2008. No such demand was ever raised by appellants from respondent-plaintiff prior to 29.7.2008. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that demand was raised due to some audit objection. However, he has failed to convince this Court as to what was the basis of audit objection and what was the basis for raising demand of `54,350/-, as alleged development charges, after four years of the release of connection. Learned first appellate Court has gone into Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and has come to the conclusion that no demand can be raised after expiry of two years of the release of electricity connection. It has also been observed that as per latest Sales Circular of appellants, in the case of Abadi area, the development charges are not even payable. It has also been observed that in view of Regulation 12(4) of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulation, permission of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission is required before exercising C.M.No.7066-C of 2011 in R.S.A. No.2558 of 2011(O&M) -3- any fresh demand. Moreover the area is already electrified and hence, appellants have failed to satisfy this Court as to for what purpose development charges are being levied upon respondent-consumer after four years of the releasing of the connection. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the instant regular second appeal. Lower appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Finding recorded by lower appellate Court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 4.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge