RSA No.1543 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1543 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: May 19, 2011 Karamvir Singh .....Appellant Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sudhir Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Karamvir Singh had filed a suit for declaration challenging notice dated 12.7.2006 vide which the penalty was sought to be recovered from the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was running the business of cattle feed with the help of a generator. Since the plaintiff could not afford to pay the electricity charges, he had not applied for electricity connection. On 9.7.2006, plaintiff through his neighbour came to know that some officials of defendants were present near his premises at about 3.30 a.m. Plaintiff reached the spot and was made to sign on some papers as a witness qua checking report of a neighbour. On 13.7.2006, plaintiff received a RSA No.1543 of 2011 (O&M) 2 notice dated 12.7.2006 alleging that he had committed theft of electricity and a penalty of ` 2,00,000/- was demanded from the plaintiff. The allegation of theft of electricity against the plaintiff was without any basis. Plaintiff was running his business with the help of a generator and had never committed theft of electricity. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff was committing theft of electricity and when the vigilance party visited the premises of the plaintiff, it was found that he was running his business with the help of direct supply of electricity without any connection. Hence, the penalty was liable to be imposed to the tune of ` 2,00,000/-. Police was asked to register an FIR against the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration to the effect that notice dated 12.7.2006 checking report and penalty bill detailed in para No.4 of the plaint are null and void and illegal, on the grounds as mentioned in the plaint?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4.Whether plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 17.4.2009, the Civil Judge RSA No.1543 of 2011 (O&M) 3 (Senior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff . Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. In the present case, the case of the plaintiff was that he was running his business with the help of a generator. However, when the checking staff of the defendants visited the premises of the plaintiff, it was found that he was running his business with the help of direct supply of electricity without any connection. The plaintiff had signed the checking report dated 9.7.2006. Admittedly, the plaintiff was running his business since the year 2002 without any electric connection. Hence, the plaintiff was liable to pay the penalty. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge May 19, 2011 arya