IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2309 of 2011 Date of Decision : 24 th May, 2011 The Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVNL, Gharaunda & another ….Appellants Versus Anil Kumar Jindal ….Respondent CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL PRESENT : Mr. K. S. Malik, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * * L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants (Sub Divisional Officer and Chairman of Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited – UHBVNL) having failed in both the courts below are in second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Anil Kumar Jindal filed suit against defendants/appellants. Plaintiff is director of Century Education Society, which has constructed its school in Gharaunda. Electricity connection for the said school has been obtained from defendants in the name of the plaintiff. The connection was obtained on 02.08.2001. The plaintiff has been paying electricity consumption charges to defendants. RSA No.2309 of 2011 In bill dated 12.11.2004, the defendants demanded Rs.1,83,525/- as development charges in addition to the consumption charges. The plaintiff in the suit challenged the said demand being illegal. The plaintiff also sought consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from making the said demand and from disconnecting the electricity supply to the plaintiff’s premises on account of non-payment of the said amount. The defendants justified the impugned demand. It was pleaded that according to sales circular No.15 of 2000 dated 20.04.2000, development charges are recoverable for release of connection in unauthorized colonies. Audit party pointed out that development charges had not been recovered from the plaintiff. Accordingly demand of the development charges was rightly made from the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 10.06.2010 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2011. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Factual position in the case is not in dispute. Defendants released electricity connection to the plaintiff on 02.08.2001 without demanding any development charges in accordance with sales circular No.15 of 2000. Demand for the development charges was for the first time -2- RSA No.2309 of 2011 made in Bill dated 12.11.2004 i.e. more than three years after the connection had been released. If any such development charges were to be recovered, the same should have been demanded before releasing the connection and not more than three years after releasing the connection. The sales circular provides that electricity connection may be released in case the occupant deposits development charges. Thus according to the sales circular, development charges were to be deposited before the release of the electricity connection. In addition to the aforesaid, the defendants have miserably failed to depict that plaintiff’s premises, where the connection in question has been installed, are situated in unauthorized colony, entitling the defendants to demand development charges from the plaintiff under the aforesaid sales circular. There is not even an iota of evidence on record led by the defendants to depict that the plaintiff’s school is located in unauthorized colony. Consequently, defendants have no right to demand development charges on the basis of sales circular No.15 of 2000. Defendants’ sole witness Sheesh Pal DW-1 admitted that there is no material on record to depict that the plaintiff’s school in question has been constructed in unauthorized colony. It is surprising that inspite of this admitted position, the defendants are insisting on recovering the development charges without any basis. Not only defendants made the impugned demand from the plaintiff but also the defendants contested the suit without any basis and then filed first appeal and the instant second appeal. Unnecessary avoidable litigation is being generated by State and its -3- RSA No.2309 of 2011 agencies because the officers/officials do not suffer any personal loss or injury by generating such unnecessary litigation without applying mind. It may be added that the plaintiff has led positive evidence that his school is situated in authorized colony and not in unauthorized colony because the plaintiff constructed the school after getting building plan sanctioned from municipality and after depositing Rs.3,00,000 as development charges with the municipality. If the school was to be constructed in unauthorized colony, municipality would not have sanctioned building plan of the school. It is thus established that the plaintiff’s school is not located in unauthorized colony. From the discussion aforesaid, it becomes crystal clear that defendants’ whole claim is patently meritless and frivolous. Plaintiff’s suit has been rightly decreed by the courts below. It is surprising that the defendants have brought the lis to second appeal without any justification. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below decreeing the plaintiffs’ suit is fully justified by the evidence on record and does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on record. The appeal does not raise any question of law, much less substantial question of law, for adjudication. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 24th May, 2011 ‘raj’ -4-