Uhbvnl And Another vs Goodluck Agro Pvt Ltd And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3524 P&H

                                                                                       2023:PHHC:048658

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                                           CHANDIGARH



                            101                                    RSA No.521 of 2022 (O&M)
                                                                   Reserved on : 20.03.2023
                                                                   Date of Decision : 11.04.2023


                            UHBVNL through its Executive Engineer & Anr.                     ....Appellants

                                                               VERSUS

                            Goodluck Agro Private Limited & Ors.                          ....Respondents



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                            Present :      Mr. Surinder K. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants.



                            ALKA SARIN, J.

CM-1572-C-2022

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and delay of 62 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA-521-2022

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the

defendant-appellants against the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both

the Courts below vide judgments and decrees dated 30.07.2018 and

12.10.2021.

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048658

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondents filed a suit against the defendants for declaration, damages and

permanent injunction. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-respondents that

they had taken an electric connection in January 2005 for mushroom farming

and the connection was released as a horticulture power connection. All the

necessary expenses for the poles, wires, transformers etc. were paid by the

plaintiff-respondents. However, the bills received were as per the industrial

tariff instead of horticulture tariff and as a result it became unviable to run

the mushroom farm. The plaintiff-respondents made efforts to get the

electricity charges as agricultural tariff but to no avail and that even though

the plaintiff-respondents did not use any electricity but the defendant-

appellants have been charging them on MMC basis and to save the

electricity connection the plaintiff-respondents deposited Rs.25,000/- and

Rs.2,94,169/- but the defendant-appellants kept sending bills by charging

industrial tariff against electricity connection. It was averred that vide Sales

Circular No.2 of 2001 it has been specifically ordered that "when mushroom

cultivation is undertaken in agricultural land in rural area, then it would be

charged at agricultural metered connection rate for which the farmer would

seek a separate metered connection". As per the plaintiff-respondents they

approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat and

challenged the bill issued by the defendant-appellants on the ground that

they had been charged as an industrial consumer whereas their status was a

horticulture/agriculture consumer. The case before the Consumer Forum was

decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondents however on appeal the State

Commission decided the appeal against the plaintiff-respondents. In PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048658

between, on 21.02.2011, the defendant-appellants disconnected the

electricity supply of the plaintiff-respondents and removed the transformer,

wires etc. without prior notice. It was averred that the plaintiff-respondents

sought information under the RTI Act and in response it was stated that an

amount of Rs.2,42,335/- was payable. However, on 25.01.2016 the plaintiff-

respondents received another reply in which an amount of Rs.76,29,629/-

was demanded which is illegal, null and void and not binding on the

plaintiff-respondents. Hence, the present suit praying for a decree for

declaration to the effect that the bill for an amount of Rs.76,29,629/- is

illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-

respondents with a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-

appellants to restore the horticulture/agriculture connection of the plaintiff-

respondents. A decree for damages on account of removal of electricity

poles, wires and transformer etc. by the defendant-appellants illegally and

forcibly was also sought and also a decree for permanent injunction

restraining the defendant-appellants from recovering the amount considering

them as industrial consumer and from taking any action on this account.

The defendant-appellants filed written statement and submitted

that the plaintiff-respondents had applied for release of an electricity

connection for ST connection and had deposited the required security under

the industrial category and connection of LS industrial category with

sanctioned load of 198.058 KW with contract demand of 220 KV was

sanctioned and that the plaintiff-respondents consumed electric energy in the

industrial category and accordingly were charged as per the industrial tariff PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048658

and an amount of Rs.76,29,629/- was due which the defendant-appellants are

legally entitled to receive and the plaintiff-respondents are liable to pay the

same.

Replication was not filed and on the basis of the pleadings of

the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of

declaration with consequential relief of permanent

injunction as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and

locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

4. Whether plaintiffs have suppressed true and

material facts from the Court ? OPD

5. Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their own act,

conduct, omission and admissions to file and

maintain the present suit ? OPD

6. Relief.

The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents

vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2018. Aggrieved by the judgment and

decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-

appellants which appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide

judgment and decree dated 12.10.2021. Hence, the present regular second

appeal.

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048658

Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has contended that

the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-

respondents. It is submitted that since the plaintiff-respondents had applied

for an industrial connection they were charged in that category. It is also

contended that the State Commission having decided the case against the

plaintiff-respondents, the present suit was barred.

In the present case both the Courts below have arrived at

concurrent findings of fact that the defendant-appellants had failed to prove

that the plaintiff-respondents had applied for an electric connection in the

industrial category. The defendant-appellants did not even produce the

record pertaining to the plaintiff-respondents and the Courts below rightly

concluded that in the absence of the record, which was with the defendant-

appellants, it could not be held that the plaintiff-respondents had applied in

the industrial category. Further, the Courts below have relied upon a circular

issued by the defendant-appellants whereunder if mushroom farming is

carried out on agricultural land in rural areas, then it would be charged at

agricultural metered connection rates. The First Appellate Court inter-alia

held that :

"18. From the concurrent reading of the sale circular

Ex.P9 and afore-said finding given by the Hon'ble High

Court is apparent on case file that according to the sale

circular dated 11.01.2001 when Mushroom farming is

undertaken in agricultural land in rural areas then

agricultural rates have to be charged. It is not the case PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048658

of the defendants that the Mushroom farming was not

being carried out in revenue estate of village Patti

Kalyana. It is also not the case of the defendants that the

said circular dated 11.01.2001 had been withdrawn by

the defendant Nigam thereby dis-entitling the plaintiff to

claim the benefit of the same. Significantly, in the year

2009, the Government came out with another circular

and removed all doubts whatsoever and categorically

decided that the horticulture and fisheries connection

had to be included in the agricultural metered category

and all existing connections had to be shifted to the

agriculture feeders at the cost of consumers. Though the

sale circular of the year 2009 was not in existence when

the plaintiffs had taken the connection but the same is

indicative of the intent of the Government to charge the

mushroom farming connection in the

agriculture/horticulture category."

The Courts below have also relied upon an earlier decision by

this Court in the case of Dr. Vivek Gupta vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran

Nigam Ltd. [2018 (1) RCR Civil 104] wherein the interpretation of the

same Sales Circular was also under consideration. The case of Dr. Vivek

Gupta (supra) also related to mushroom farming and counsel for the

defendant-appellants has not been able to show that the said decision has

been altered or set aside.

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048658

The argument of counsel for the defendant-appellants that the

suit was barred as the State Commission had already decided the case

against the plaintiff-respondents is also to be rejected. The decision by the

State Commission was not on the merits but it held that the complainant

(plaintiff-respondents herein) were not consumers under the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986.

Counsel for the defendant-appellants has not been able to

highlight any material irregularity or illegality in the concurrent findings of

fact recorded by both the Courts below.

In view of the discussion above, no question of law, much less

any substantial question of law, arises for determination by this Court in the

present case. The present appeal is wholly devoid of any merit and is

dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

Dismissed.

                                                                                       ( ALKA SARIN )
                            11.04.2023                                                     JUDGE
                            parkash




                                         NOTE:        Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
                                                      Whether reportable: YES/NO




PARKASH CHAND
2023.04.11 15:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.