RSA No.3351 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3351 of 2008 Date of Decision: 24. 10. 2008 Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...... Appellants Versus Harnam Dass ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.U.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below holding that the appellant-board is liable to remove the transformer erected by it in the shop of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the transformers were erected with the consent of the plaintiff-respondent and that under Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1948 the appellant-Board had the right to instal electric supply in the public interest at any place. Both these contentions have been dealt with by the Courts below. The learned Lower Appellate Court held as follows:- “The only plea taken by the appellant is that the transformer was installed with the consent of the respondent, therefore, it cannot be shifted; and the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant board is without merit because the RSA No.3351 of 2008 2 transformer was installed in the shop belonging to respondent Harnam Dass Arora for certain period after observing the need of the hour. It is also admitted that no rental value nor any licence fee was agreed between the parties while at the time of installation of this transformer which makes it clear that the transformer was permitted to be installed for a certain period. It is also admitted that the appellant board has neither paid any rent nor any fees for using the shop belonging to respondent Harnam Dass Arora for the purpose of installation of transformer. It is also clear and it has not been pleaded by the appellant that the said shop was rented out or given by respondent Harnam Dass Arora for ever to the appellant board and if it is not so, then the said shop belongs to respondent Harnam Dass Arora. It is also admitted that being owner of the shop, he has every right to use the property belonging to him. In these circumstances, the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality and any infirmity in the findings of he learned lower Court on issue No.1 where it has been held that plaintiff Harnam Dass Arora is lawful owner of the shop in dispute and is well within his right to ask the defendants to remove the said transformer from his shop whenever he finds the said transformer from his shop incomfortable. It is also established and clear from the circumstances that occupation of the said shop by the appellant department has also been causing monetary and financial loss to the respondent because the said shop can be let out to any body and respondent can have income of rent from the said shop and he can also use the said shop for his personal necessity, if he feels so, and appellant board has not been able to make it clear whether there is any such law/byelaw which authorises the electricity board to occupy the private properties of the individual whenever and wherever they want. Learned counsel for the appellants has merely referred section 42 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act but from the perusal of the said section, it is clear that electricity board cannot install any RSA No.3351 of 2008 3 electric device at any private property without the consent of the owner and merely by pleading that respondent had earlier given the consent to install the said transformer in the suit property for a certain period, does not mean that it is for ever granted to the electricity board to keep the said transformer in the shop. Hence, the appellant has not been able to show any merit in the said contention.” Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to refer to any provision of law or any judgment to successfully show that the above said observations are vitiated in law. In this view of the matter the appeal is dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for some reasonable time to find an alternate location to erect the transformer. The request is just and the appellants are granted time up to 31.7.2009 to hand over vacant possession of the shop to the respondent provided that (i) the entire amount decreed by the Courts below and the amount which will fall due up to the period of 31.7.2009( at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month) is deposited with the Trial Court within a period of 15 days of the receipt of a certified copy of this order (ii) the usual undertaking is filed in this Court within a period of 15 days of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 24 , 2008 sunita