Akhtar Ali vs Sdo Uhbvnl Sub Division ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6489 P&H

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
109

                                                       RSA-276-2021 (O&M)
                                                       Decided on : 11.07.2022

Akhtar Ali
                                                                . . . Appellant(s)
                                         Versus
S.D.O., U.H.B.V.N. Sub Division, Chhachrauli
and others
                                                             . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

PRESENT: Mr. Krishan Kumar Thakur, Advocate
         for the appellant(s).

                                         ****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral)

Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the

appellant/plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and

decree dated 26.09.2019, and as even the appeal preferred against the said

decree failed and was dismissed on 16.02.2021 by the lower Appellate

Court, the plaintif is now here before this Court in Regular Second Appeal.

Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original

positions in the suit.

The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to

the effect that checking report LL-1 No. 7588/19, dated 10.11.2017 and

memos No.4649 and 4650, dated 12.01.2018, were illegal, null and void and

thus liable to be set-aside, being not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.

It was averred that since the aforementioned checking report LL-1 and

memos were an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation of facts, the

defendant-Department be restrained from recovery of alleged amount of

Rs.3,63,106/- (for theft of electricity) mentioned in memo No. 4649 and the

1 of 5

RSA-276-2021 (O&M) -2-

compounding fee of Rs.1,70,000/- mentioned in memo No. 4650, from the

plaintiff. A prayer was also made therein for permanent injunction to

restrain the defendant-Department from disconnecting the electricity

connection of the plaintiff and from initiating any criminal proceedings

against him.

The pleaded case of the plaintiff was that electricity connection

bearing No. KR0D0187S was installed in his premises. Since the wires of

the electricity meter were hanging loose, he sent a complaint on 04.10.2017

to the defendant-Department in the said regard. Thereafter, the officials of

the defendant-Department came to his premises and carried out the repairs

in the meter. However, on 07.11.2017, on account of the loose wires

hanging, the electricity meter of the plaintiff caught fire and was burnt. The

plaintiff immediately moved an application seeking change of meter and

deposited the expenses for the said purpose in the defendant-Department.

Resultantly, a new meter was installed. However, to his dismay, the

defendant No.1 issued memos dated 12.01.2018 (Ex. P-1 & P-2) and

demanded an amount of Rs.3,63,106/-, for theft of electricity along with

compounding fee of Rs.1,70,000/-.

The plaintiff alleged that the aforesaid memos were issued on

the basis of a false checking report and that the Department had maliciously

obtained signatures of the plaintiff on blank papers. He further denied that

the electricity meter had been tampered with by him. It was claimed by the

plaintiff that when the officials of the defendant-Department inspected the

meter in question, it was found to be 'OK', which found support from the

fact that even on earlier occasions, whenever the meter was checked by the

officials, no abnormality was detected by them.

The defendant-Department while filing their written statement

2 of 5

RSA-276-2021 (O&M) -3-

admitted to the issuance of memos No. 4649 and 4650, dated 12.01.2018,

for raising a demand of Rs.3,63,106/- on account of theft of electricity and

another amount of Rs.1,70,000/- as compounding fee. It was submitted that

due to suspicion during checking and inspection, the electricity meter of the

plaintiff, was sent for checking to the M&T Lab and the same was checked

in the presence of the plaintiff himself and as per the M&T Lab report, it

was a case of intentional burning and thus, a case of theft of electricity.

Upon consideration of the matter and on the basis of the

evidence led, both the Courts below concurrently concluded that there was

enough cogent evidence on record, which proved that it was a case of theft

of electricity by the plaintiff and despite issuance of notices to him to

deposit the penalty imposed, he had failed to do so.

It is not disputed by the plaintiff himself that on his complaint

dated 04th October, 2017, wires installed in his electricity meter were

repaired by the defendant-Department, which fact also finds duly

corroborated from Ex.P-8/A, which is the complaint report. However, soon

thereafter, on 07.11.2017, the electricity meter of the plaintiff was burnt and

LL-1 report Ex.D1 was prepared at the spot by the defendant-Department.

The meter was then sent to the M&T Lab for checking. The checking by the

M&T Lab, was done in the presence of the plaintiff himself, which finds

due corroboration from the fact that the signatures of the plaintiff are there

on the said report "Mark B". No doubt, it was alleged by the plaintiff that

his signatures had been obtained on blank papers, however, this plea of the

plaintiff deserves to be rejected outright, as firstly, it cannot be digested

that why would the plaintiff have agreed and actually signed on blank

papers and secondly no complaint, whatsoever, was made by the plaintiff

before the authorities concerned that his signatures had been obtained on

3 of 5

RSA-276-2021 (O&M) -4-

blank papers and thereafter, misused.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff while

drawing the attention of this Court to the testimony of PW-3 - Ramesh

Kumar, submits that this witness had categorically deposed that a complaint

was received on 04th October, 2017 (Ex.P-8/A), after which he visited the

premises of the plaintiff and carried out necessary repairs in the electricity

meter, from where some wires were hanging loosely. He further submits

that this witness during his cross-examination categorically deposed that the

meter had been working fine prior to it getting burnt. Still further, learned

counsel drew the attention of this Court to the testimony of DW-1/Krishan

Kumar, Junior Engineer, Sub Division HVPN, Chhachhrauli, who deposed

during his cross-examination that he was not in a position to comment upon

the theft of the electricity. Hence, it was urged that in the aforementioned

facts and circumstances particularly the deposition of the officials of the

defendant-Department, it was evident that it was not a case of theft of

electricity, which fact had been erroneously not appreciated by both the

Courts below.

This Court, however, finds no substance and merit in the

aforementioned submissions of the learned counsel. No doubt, DW-

1/Krishan Kumar, JE, did depose that he was not in a position to tell as to

whether there had been any theft of electricity or not, however, it would be

pertinent to mention that he was just one of the many officials of the

defendant-Department, who reached the premises of the plaintiff, after fire

was reported in the electricity meter. The electricity meter as already

observed in the preceding paragraphs was not checked by the officials of the

defendant-Department, but due to suspicion was sent to the M&T Lab. On

checking of the electricity meter by the M&T Lab, all the CT coils, copper

4 of 5

RSA-276-2021 (O&M) -5-

wires were found to be healthy and intact and strangely, only the incoming

wires and cables were not present, which indicated that the electricity meter

had been tampered with and burnt. Not only this, the seals on the electricity

meter were also missing, which further proved that the meter had been

tampered with.

In the above facts and circumstances, the only and inevitable

conclusion, which was rightly arrived at, by the Courts below, was that it

was indeed a case of theft of electricity, for which the plaintiff had been

rightly directed to deposit the amount of penalty along with the

compounding fee.

Upon being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the

appellant/defendant failed to refer to anything on record to show that the

conclusions arrived at by the Courts below were either contrary to the

record or suffered from any material illegality. The appeal, being devoid of

merit, is accordingly dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts

below are affirmed.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE July 11, 2022 J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5