-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 2831 of 1988. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 07, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 2831 of 1988. Haryana State Electricity Board through its Chairman and others ... Appellants VERSUS Amin Lal ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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. V.K. Vashistha, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Plaintiff-respondent Amin Lal filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants-appellants i.e Haryana State Electricity Board (for short `the Board') and others from effecting -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2831 of 1988. recovery of Rs.9167.45 from him (plaintiff) through coercive methods and from disconnecting supply to his flour mill situated in Village Dostpur on account of non-deposit of the amount. The claim of the plaintiff was that the meter installed in his flour mill was defective and was not giving correct reading. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was allowed and the following order was passed by the lower appellate Court:- “ The defendants-respondents are restrained from recovering Rs.9167.45 with penalty and also from disconnecting the electric connection of the plaintiff for non- payment of the aforesaid bills. The respondents may recover the amount which is calculated on the basis of actual consumption shown by the previous meter (alleged to be defective) for the period September 1982 to January 1984 without any penalty or any other incidental charges or penalty. The appellant-plaintiff would be bound to pay or deposit the amount of bill (s) so received within 15 days of its receipt, failing which, the Board would be entitled to take necessary steps for its -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2831 of 1988. recovery.” The lower appellate Court noticed that as per the evidence of the Board itself, an order for changing the defective meter installed at the premises of the plaintiff was passed by the Board on 8.4.1984, but this order was not implemented by the officials of the Board upto 9.1.1984. Since the department was negligent in not installing a new meter, the plaintiff could not be penalized for the negligence of the officials of the department. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 07, 2011. JUDGE ak