RSA No.3938 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3938 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 3.3.2009 UHBVNL and another ......Appellants Versus Dr. Ramesh Chhabra and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the respondents. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.2737-C of 2009 Application is allowed. Affidavits of Sh. Vikas Suri, Advocate and Sh. R.S. Verma, SDO, UHBVNL, Model Town, Panipat are taken on record. CM No.11727-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, I find that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 821 days in refiling the appeal. Thus, the application is allowed. Delay of 821 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA No.3938 of 2008 As per the averments made in the suit, the plaintiff- respondents were consumers of defendant-appellants and were making regular payment of electricity bills. The respondents were having four electric connections i.e. Accounts No.MT-12, MT-14 and MT-15 for commercial use and MT-13 for domestic use. The defendants visited the premises of the plaintiffs on 27.8.1996 and disconnected the electricity supply without following due process of law. According to the appellants, all the meters installed at his premises were correctly recording RSA No.3938 of 2008(O&M) 2 consumption and the defendants without following the due procedure illegally held the seals of the meters installed at plaintiffs' premises to be fake. No case of theft of energy by using artificial means of abstraction of energy was made out against the plaintiffs. The defendants in gross violation of natural justice and against their instructions and without serving any show cause notice, illegally disconnected the supply of plaintiffs' hospital wherein patients were admitted. The defendants wrongly calculated the penalty against the plaintiff-respondents and also illegally clubbed loads of account No.MT-12, MT-14 and MT-15. Request of the plaintiffs to restore the electricity supply yielded no result which necessitated the filing of the suit for mandatory injunction seeking reconnection of electricity supply. The defendants resisted the suit by raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that on 27.8.1996 when the premises of the plaintiffs was checked up, it was found that only one connection bearing account No. MT-13 was used for the entire building and the remaining connections were intermingled. The seals of meter body of the meter bearing account No.12, 13 and 15 were found fake/duplicate. There was an improper use of the electricity supply which was not authorized by the electricity Board and the case FIR No.217 dated 27.8.1996 under section 379 IPC read with Sections 39, 39-A and 44 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1910, relating to theft of electricity was registered against the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs were making improper use of electricity which had caused loss to the Board, their premises were liable to be disconnected immediately without any notice. Therefore, the defendants rightly and legally disconnected the supply of the electricity to the plaintiff's premises. It was further stated that an amount of Rs.2,16,276/- was assessed by the Authority as compensation. Under the provisions/instructions, the seals of the alleged meter were got compared RSA No.3938 of 2008(O&M) 3 with the original seals and the same were found to be fake and it was stated that penalty was rightly and correctly assessed. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After both the parties led evidence, the trial Court under issue no.1 observed that the defendants were not justified in immediately disconnecting all power connections installed at the premises of the plaintiffs and directed the restoration thereof. However, the demand raised by the defendants for a sum of Rs.2,16,276/- was held to be correct and the defendants were found entitled to recover the said amount from the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Panipat vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.4.2006 holding that it was not proved that there was any theft of power by the plaintiffs and the defendants were not entitled to recover the amount of Rs.2,16,276/- and thus, the defendants were restrained from recovering the aforesaid amount from the plaintiffs. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the defendants have filed the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is erroneous as the consumer was guilty of theft of energy as the seals of the meter were found tampered with and the plaintiffs were using domestic supply for a commercial activity, which was not permissible and thus, the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court suffers from perversity and is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of the Lower Appellate Court and has argued that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is liable to be RSA No.3938 of 2008(O&M) 4 dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal. Admittedly, all the four connections of the plaintiff-respondents were checked on 27.8.1996 by the Vigilance Party of the appellants wherein certain alleged malpractices were found which led to preparation of checking report which was placed on record as Mark-A. Undisputedly, on the basis of this report, the appellants raised the demand of Rs.2,16,276/- from the plaintiff-respondents. It is also not disputed that theft case was registered against the plaintiff-respondents vide FIR No.217 dated 27.8.1996 and the plaintiff-respondents were discharged vide order dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. The Courts below also recorded a finding of fact that before disconnecting all the four connections of the plaintiff-respondents, the principles of natural justice were not followed. It is also not disputed that the report of the Vigilance Party which found the seals of meter connection to be fake was not sent to laboratory for checking. Thus, there is no other evidence on the record of the case to prove the fact of duplicate seals on the power connections except the report Mark-A. Even this report of the Vigilance Party was inadmissible in evidence as the same was not proved in accordance with law. Thus, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. March 3, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE