C.R.No.3031 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3031 of 2009 Date of Decision 13.11.2009 M/s Yorks Plastics ........ Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Thiara, Advocate, for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 19.8.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana (Annexure-P1) whereby the application filed by it for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply to the meter of the petitioner and also from recovering the amount of penalty from it, was dismissed and the order dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-2) whereby the District Judge, Ludhiana, on appeal there against affirmed the same. In para 6 of its order, the lower Appellate Court while affirming the order of the trial court recorded as under: “I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and I C.R.No.3031 of 2009 -2- am of the considered opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is admitted fact between the parties that initially the sanctioned load was extended from 79.847 KW to 298.012 KW and the electric connection was converted into L.S. Category. The appellant had approached the Dispute Settlement Committee for the settlement of issues and had deposited 50% of the alleged demand. The argument raised by the appellant that the Dispute Settlement Committee was biased as it comprised of the full time employees of Punjab State Electricity Board holds no ground because the appellant can not be allowed to challenge the constitution of Dispute Settlement Committee after having appeared before the same and having been unsuccessful in getting favourable orders from the same. Furthermore, if the appellant had any grievance against the order of the Dispute Settlement Committee, it had the remedy to approach Dispute Settlement Authority, which is appellate authority. Although the civil court jurisdiction is not barred by scheme framed by Punjab State Electricity C.R.No.3031 of 2009 -3- Board, by composing a Dispute Settlement Committee, yet it does not take away remedy of the Dispute Settlement Authority i.e. the Appellate Authority. The applicant is duty bound to make the payment of the alleged demand, if it is proved that he violated the Peak Load Hour Restrictions, therefore, there is no prima facie case in its favour. The balance of convenience is also not in favour of the appellant and no irreparable loss would be caused to it, if the injunction is not granted in its favour. If case is finally decided in favour of the applicant/plaintiff, the money deposited by the appellant can be adjusted in the future bills raised by Punjab State Electricity Board for the consumption of electricity by the appellant. The judgment W.B.S.E.B Vs. Faqir Chand Rice Mills and other (supra) relied upon by the appellant lays down that only half the amount should be directed to be deposited in the matters of money claims. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has infact observed that obligation is cast upon the consumers to pay the amount subject to the determination of controversy in the suit and in C.R.No.3031 of 2009 -4- the said judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the consumer of electricity to deposit a sum of Rs.12 lacs within a period of two months. Hence, the said judgment has not laid down the law that only half the amount should be directed to be deposited. In fact it says that at least half of the amount would be directed to be deposited. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The lower Court file be returned alongwith the copy of this judgment for compliance. The parties are directed to appear before the ld. Trial Court on 21.4.2009. ” In view of the above observations of the courts below and for the reason that no illegality or perversity could be shown therein by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and same is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 13, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE