R.S.A.No.1130 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1130 of 2006 Date of Decision : 27.7.2009 Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran ...Appellants Nigam Ltd. and others Versus M/s Jay Ambey Ice Factory ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. O.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the demand raised by the defendants on 25.7.1997 to the tune of Rs.7,99,407/- was found to be partly untenable. The business premises of the plaintiff was inspected on 25.7.1997. During checking the meter was found to be made dead by bye-passing the meter and supply was taken directly from the main line. In view of the said report, a demand for recovery of Rs.7,99,407/- was raised against the plaintiff for a period of preceding 6 months on the basis of electric supply for 18 hours per day. Both the Courts below have found that the electric supply remain disconnected from the period 12.9.1996 to 13.4.1997, therefore, R.S.A.No.1130 of 2006 2 while overhauling the account of the plaintiff, the claim for preceding 6 months which falls within the aforesaid period is not tenable. It was also found that the appellants could raise demand on the basis of 8 hours supply per day for a period from 1.5.1997 to 5.6.1997 and 6 hours supply per day for a period from 6.6.1997 to 24.7.1997 i.e. the hours of supply for the industry in question. The reasoning given by the Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. The electric supply was restored on 30.4.1997. The plaintiff could not be charged for the period when the electric supply remain disconnected while overhauling the account of the plaintiff. Similarly, the plaintiff cannot be charged for more hours than the hours for which supply was being made to the Industry by the defendant-appellants. In view of the said fact, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 27.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE