Dhbvn Ltd. Through Its Authorized ... vs Satbir Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 15487 P&H

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
                       Sr. No.: 115


                                                          Regular Second Appeal No.2570 of 2022
                                                             Date of Decision: December 01, 2022


                       Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & another
                                                                                ..... APPELLANT(S)
                                                         VERSUS
                       Satbir Yadav
                                                                              ..... RESPONDENT(S)

                                                            ...

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

...

PRESENT: - Mr. Amrit Singh Kang, Advocate, for the appellants.

. . .

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J (Oral)

This is defendants' second appeal against the concurrent

findings of both the Courts below.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and

permanent injunction to the effect that Memos dated 21.07.2017 whereby

his electricity connection was disconnected on account of theft of electricity

were illegal, and the defendants be restrained from disconnecting the power

supply on that basis.

3. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the alleged theft

of electricity could not be established on record. The appellants-defendants

failed to produce the alleged videography stated to have been recorded at the

spot as per report LL-1 (Mark P-1). The authorized officer was required to

seize the material used for theft of electricity from the premises, and seal it

with verification of the witness present. No seizure memo was, however,

prepared by the defendants. Further, no member of the checking team was AVIN KUMAR 2022.12.05 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA No.2570 of 2022 [2]

examined to prove the fact that premises of the plaintiff was duly checked,

or that he was found to be involved in the alleged theft of electricity in any

manner. Therefore, the procedure laid down in Circulars No.D-17/2014 and

D-21/2017 that was mandatorily required to be followed by the defendants,

was not followed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to

show to this Court also that the mandatory procedure was followed by the

department, or any other evidence to establish the alleged theft of electricity

by the plaintiff was brought on record.

5. In view of the aforesaid, there is no ground to interfere with

the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

6. Dismissed.

7. Since the main appeal stands decided, all pending

applications, if any, are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

(Tribhuvan Dahiya) Judge December 01, 2022 avin

Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No

AVIN KUMAR 2022.12.05 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.