RSA No.1740 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 1185-C of 2009 and RSA No. 1740 of 2007 Date of Decision: October 30 , 2009 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another ...... Appellants Versus Mani Ram ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 1185-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed. Persons mentioned in para 2 are impleaded as legal representatives of the respondent subject to all just exceptions. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. RSA No. 1740 of 2007 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for an injunction restraining the appellants from giving any tubewell connection from the individual land and the transformer of the plaintiff. Both the courts RSA No.1740 of 2007 2 found that the respondent had obtained the connection under Tatkal scheme whereby the entire cost of releasing the connection from 11 KV line` including that of the transformer, the line as well as the future responsibility for replacement and maintenance was charged from the respondents. Thus, the courts held that the appellant could not extend the said line. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the judgments and decree o the courts below are based on conjectures and surmises and are liable to be set aside? ii)Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are not legally sustainable in the eyes of law? iii)Whether the learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and travelled beyond such evidence while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff? iv)Whether the defendants/appellants are entitled to extend HT line and give another connection from individual line as per the instructions issued from time to time, keeping in view the exigencies regarding erection of independent and separate individual supply line for every consumer? The only question argued is question No.(iv). Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Jagdamba Paper Industries (Pvt.)Ltd. and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others etc. reported as AIR 1983 SC 1296. In that case challenge had been made to the enhancement of security by the Haryana State Electricity Board. It was in that context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “8. Under Clause 31 of the agreement the Board reserved to itself the right to amend, cancel or add to any of the schedules and conditions at any time. The provisions of this clause are similar to Clause 13 of the RSA No.1740 of 2007 3 agreement which came to be considered in Bisra Lime stone Company's case (supra). We are, therefore, inclined to take the view that the Board had authority under the agreement itself to amend the conditions. In exercise of that power the Board has now raised the additional demand. We have already taken note of the fact that that there has been a steep escalation in the tariff. Counsel for the Board placed before us a statement which indicates that while tariff had gone up almost four times,the demand for security raised by the Board is much less-it is a little more than two times of the original security. 10. We agree, however, on the facts placed that the stand of the Board that a demand equal to the energy bill of two months or a little more is not unreasonable. Once we reach the conclusion that the Boar has the power to unilaterally revive the conditions of supply, it must follow that the demand of higher additional security for payment of energy bills is unassailable, provided that the power is not exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.” The said judgment is,however, clearly distinguishable. Even with regard to the present respondents there is no bar if the appellant increases the tariff or security for similar reasons as were there in the cited judgment. However, in view of the fact that the cost transformer and the line were paid for by the respondents no further burden can be put thereon by the appellants unilaterally. In this view of the matter the question argued viz. question No. (iv) has to be answered against the appellants. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 30, 2009 sunita