RSA No. 1972 of 2006 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 1972 of 2006 Date of decision: November 21,2008 Karan Singh ..Appellant. Versus H.S.E.B and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vikas Suri, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making recovery of the amount in dispute from the plaintiff and from interfering in the supply of electricity to his Atta Chakki having connection No. TS 384 and from disconnecting the connection for non-payment of the above said amount was dismissed. The claim of the plaintiff is that he is a consumer for electricity power connection No. TS 384. The meter of the said connection was changed by the defendants on 23.3.1996 and a new meter was installed. The plaintiff is making the regular payment of the consumption charges. However, he has received a notice No.625 dated 2.4.1997 vide which the defendants have directed him to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,407-76 for the last six months as the seals of the meter were found tampered, failing which they have threatened to disconnect the electricity supply. According to the plaintiff, the meter reader of the Board visits his premises every month. Had the seals been tampered with, then this must have been noticed by him? This bill of inflated amount was served by the defendant only to harass him. Defendants were intending to disconnect his connection to recover the amount in question. Hence this suit. RSA No. 1972 of 2006 2 The defendants filed their written statement and challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain and try this suit and alleged that suit is false and frivolous. It was further alleged that on 1.4.1997, Assistant Director (Vigilance), HSEB along with other officials inspected the premises and found that M&T seals in the meter were tampered with and the plaintiff has committed the theft of energy and thus penalty of Rs.1,25,407.76 was imposed upon plaintiff rightly. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. The defendants have further stated in their written statement that the electricity supply to connection No. TS 384 had already been disconnected even prior to the issuance of notice Ex.P8 and therefore, there is no question of interfering or disconnecting the electricity supply of the plaintiff. The plaintiff produced his evidence. However, the defendants failed to produce any evidence and their evidence was closed by an order of the court. It was held by the trial Court that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction as he has no locus standi to bring this suit as he failed to make out any cause of action against the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.2004 passed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional Distinct Judge, Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2006. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court held that instead of filing the suit for permanent injunction, plaintiff should have availed the remedy provided under the Electricity Act, 2003. The appeal was also dismissed on merits and it was also held by the lower Appellate Court that the electricity connection of the appellant already stood disconnected as he failed to deposit the money as demanded from him through the impugned notice and the plaintiff has not challenged the notice dated 2.4.1997 raising the demand against him. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the courts below in this Court. RSA No. 1972 of 2006 3 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondents have failed to lead any evidence on record that the appellant’s premises were ever checked by any raiding/checking party. Bald assertion made by the defendants that the meter was found to be tampered with, does not prove that the appellant was committing the theft of electricity. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings of the courts below and has argued that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. From the pleadings of the case, it is clear that the appellant has sought the relief of permanent injunction only, restraining the defendants from affecting the recovery on the basis of notice Ex.P8, which according to him is illegal. However, no such relief can be granted without any cogent evidence on record to show that the notice Ex.P8 was issued illegally. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that notice Ex. P-8 was issued illegally. It is well settled that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and he cannot take benefit of the weakness of the defendant. Neither the plaintiff has sought any declaration to the effect that the notice Ex.P8 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. So far as the question of restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity supply is concerned, no such injunction can be granted to the plaintiff because the defendants have clearly stated in their written statement that the electricity supply to connection No. TS 324 stood already disconnected even prior to the issuance of notice Ex.P8. The plaintiff had not denied this assertion. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that even after the institution of the present proceedings; the plaintiff had consumed the electricity from this connection. No other point has been urged. No substantial question of law arises. No merit. Dismissed. November 21, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE