R.S.A.No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.1.2011 Rajesh and others ......Appellants Versus Executive Engineer, UHBVN City and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.V.S.Ranga, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 23.1.2010. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining R.S.A.No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the defendants from recovering a sum of Rs.99,910/- forcibly and illegally from him. It was pleaded that electricity connection No.SK- 12/1352 was installed in his residential house and he was paying the energy bill regularly to the defendants. The official of UHEVN had filed a false complaint against him on the allegations that he committed theft of electricity energy by putting direct cable on the main line on 9.7.1977 and on that basis a case under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 bearing FIR No.722 dated 14.10.1997 was registered against him. However, plaintiff was acquitted in that case vide judgement dated 7.1.2003. The defendants disconnected electricity connection of the plaintiff on the basis of false report of theft, but on acquittal, plaintiff requested defendant to restore the electricity connection to which defendant No.2 asked the plaintiff firstly deposit outstanding amount of Rs.99,910/- and only thereafter, electricity connection would be restored. It is contended that impugned outstanding amount of Rs.99,910/- was calculated on the basis of the inspection report of theft dated 9.7.1997 and now the same could not be demanded as the plaintiff was acquitted in that theft case. Defendants submitted that plaintiff was a defaulter of the Nigam since April 1994 till December, 1999 when PDCO of electricity connection was issued. Plaintiff was a defaulter of the defendants for a sum of Rs.99,910/-. The electricity connection of plaintiff was permanently disconnected by defendants due to non payment of the electricity bills. On 9.7.1997 officials of the defendants checked the premises of plaintiff and during checking, it was found that he was using R.S.A.No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) 3 the electricity energy by way of direct supply. On the basis of checking report, notice was sent to the plaintiff for depositing the penalty amount but he failed to do so, therefore, case bearing FIR No.722 dated 14.10.1997 was got registered against him. The acquittal of the plaintiff in the criminal case had no bearing on the rights of defendants to recover outstanding amount from him. Electricity connection of plaintiff was disconnected in the month of October, 1998 on account of non payment of electricity bill including penalty for theft of electric energy. The plaintiff could not seek restoration of connection until and unless he cleared his dues. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the defendant are entitled for special costs under Section 35-A CPC ? OPD 6. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. R.S.A.No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the recovery of ` 99,910/- sought to be effected from him. The case of the defendants was that the plaintiff was a defaulter. At the time of checking it was found that the plaintiff was using electricity supply directly. On the basis of the checking report, a notice was issued to the plaintiff to deposit the penalty. A criminal case was also registered against the plaintiff qua theft of electricity. Although the plaintiff has been acquitted in the criminal case but the said finding is not binding on the civil Court. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led on record, have given a finding of fact that on checking conducted by the department on 19.7.1997, it was found that the plaintiff was committing theft of electricity. Paintiff had failed to deposit any bill qua consumption of electricity since the year 1994. The electricity connection of the plaintiff was disconnected six years prior to the date of checking but the plaintiff had not bothered to get restoration of the electricity connection. As per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act for short) if on an inspection of any premises, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that the person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity then he would provisionally assess the electricity charges payable by such a person. A person aggrieved by the order passed under Section 126 of the Act can file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Act. R.S.A.No. 64 of 2011 (O&M) 5 Section 145 of the Act reads as under:- “Civil Court not to have jurisdiction: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in Section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.” Thus, learned Additional District Judge rightly held that since special remedy was available to the plaintiff under the Act, the civil suit was not maintainable. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 07, 2011 anita