R.S.A.No. 496 of 2000 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 496 of 2000 Date of Decision:July 24, 2009 Bansi Dhar and others ---Appellants versus Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the appellants None for the respondents *** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs – Toda Ram deceased through legal heirs had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul vide judgment dated 31.1.1997 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge-I, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.2000. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, in paras 3 and 4 of its judgment read as under:- “Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the suit and R.S.A.No. 496 of 2000 {2} appeal are that Toda Ram is the resident of village Dhani Bas Kirarod Umrabad, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. He was agriculturist by profession and his agricultural land was situated in the area of village Dhani Bas Kirarod Umrabad. He had also his agricultural land in village Chudiana Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunkhunu (Rajasthan) quite adjacent to his land situated in village Dhani Bas Kirarod Umrabad. Since the ground water in the area of village Dhani Bas Kirarod Umrabad was not available and the water was available in his land situated in the area of village Chudina. Therefore, he constructed a well in his land situated in the area of village Chudina (Rajasthan). He applied for electric connection to run the pumping set installed in that well. The respondents sanctioned the electric connection and installed the same presuming that the well was situated in the area of Haryana. Later on the defendants/respondents came to know that the tube-well of the plaintiff was in the territory of Rajasthan and the electricity connection was wrongly issued to Toda Ram. They served notice vide endorsement No. 40 dated 5.1.1990 on 13.1.1990 and required him to surrender the electricity connection and the take the same from Rajasthan Electricity Board. After the receipt of the said notice Toda Ram filed the present suit praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity connection. The defendants appeared and filed the written R.S.A.No. 496 of 2000 {3} statement contesting the suit on the grounds that it was not maintainable in the present form; that Toda Ram had no locus- standi to file the suit; that Toda Ram was estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct; that Toda Ram obtained the electricity connection by concealing the true facts, in the territory of Rajasthan; that he had not come to the court with clean hands; that the defendants could not sanction the electricity connection out of the territory of Haryana; that the suit of Toda Ram was false, frivolous vexatious and was liable to be dismissed.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the notice bearing No. 40 dated 5.1.1990 issued by defendants to the plaintiff is illegal as alleged, of so to what effect? OPP (2)Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (3)Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit? OPD (4)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Letter issued by the Chief Engineer/Commercial, HSEB, Panchkula dated 8.3.1988, as reproduced in para 11 of the judgment of the Additional District Judge-I, reads as under:- “ Circular No. 22/85 conveyed vide this office memo No. CH- 147/SS.TR-95(90)/AR/Vol.II dated 28.8.1995 vide which instructions regarding releases of electric connections on R.S.A.No. 496 of 2000 {4} priority basis under agricultural, domestic and commercial category within BKMs of Inter-State Borders i.e. area adjoining the territories of the State of Punjab, Rajasthan and U.P. were issued. It has come to the notice of this office that field officers have misinterpreted the instructions contained in the circular referred to above and connections have been allowed in the territory of Rajasthan whereas it was intended to give priority to connections falling within 8 Kms of Inter-State boundary in Haryana territory. Release of connection outside the territory in Haryana should be stopped forthwith. The connections already released beyond the jurisdiction of Haryana are required to be disconnected immediately.” Admittedly, the electricity connection with regard to the tube- well situated in State of Rajasthan is in question. In terms of letter dated 8.3.1988, the electric connections which were already released beyond the jurisdiction of Haryana were immediately required to be disconnected In these circumstance, courts below had rightly observed that the plaintiff should have approached the Rajasthan State Electricity Board for electric connection with regard to a tube well situated in the State of Rajasthan. Electric connection, which was issued to the plaintiff inadvertently, is liable to be disconnected once the mistake was detected in view of letter dated 8.3.1988. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The electric connection installed by Haryana State Electricity Board under mistaken belief be not disconnected till 30.11.2009 so that the R.S.A.No. 496 of 2000 {5} standing crops of the appellant would not suffer. In the meantime, appellants, is so advised, can approach the Rajasthan Electricity Board for seeking an electric connection. (SABINA) JUDGE July 24, 2009 PARAMJIT