Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation ... on 7 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141794
1
RSA-3549 of 2019 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:141794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3549 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.11.2023
Daljit Singh
......Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Rakshit Gupta, Advocate,
for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellant.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rupnagar, whereby suit of the appellant-
plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed as
well as against the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2019 passed by the
Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, vide which the
appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree
of the trial Court, has been dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made
as per their status in the civil suit. Briefly stated, plaintiff had filed the
suit for declaration to the effect that the memo no. 541 dated 22.3.2016
issued by defendant no.2 against the plaintiff vide which the defendants
directed the plaintiff to pay Rs.2,49,549/- + Rs.108051/- total Rs.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141794
RSA-3549 of 2019 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:141794
3,57,600/-+ Rs. 156600/- as interest for the period 7/2012 to 10/2015
alleged to be compounding fee is wrong, illegal, null and void, arbitrary
and the same cannot be recovered from the plaintiff and suit for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from effecting
recovery of the said amount against the plaintiff wrongly, illegally and
forcibly. The plaintiff averred that an electric meter for Flour Mill (Atta
Chaki) vide connection A/C No. SP 75/149 has been fixed outside the
premises at the distant place from the flour mill of the plaintiff for
which the said connection had been obtained from the officials of the
defendant department and the officials were responsible for the safety
of the meter which was installed outside and when fixing the meter, the
authenticity of the said meter was not disclosed and plaintiff was not
aware whether the meter was reflecting proper consumption or whether
it was tempered with before fixation. It has further been averred that in
the year 1998, an electricity connection was released for the flour mill
of the plaintiff and at that time, two meters were installed by the
defendants i.e. one for the consumption for milling by the flour mill
and other small meter was installed for the consumption of the light and
fans for the premises of flour mill and the bill for the consumption of
both meters was being sent by the defendants/department by adding
consumption of both meters i.e. in one bill up to 18.5.2001. It has been
averred that before bill dated 16.6.2001 small meter which was meant
for light and fans was removed by the officials of the defendant without
consent of the plaintiff and consumption of light and fans was wrongly
transferred on one meter which was meant for consumption of flour
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141794
RSA-3549 of 2019 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:141794
mill. It has been averred that up to bill dated 18.10.2002, meter no.
160716 remained installed in the Flour Mill premises. In the bill dated
16.11.2002, Meter No. 611704 has been mentioned by the defendants
but previously said meter was changed and removed by the officials of
the defendant department without consent and in the absence of the
plaintiff and without any reason. Upto bill dated 17.4.2004, meter no.
611704 remained in operation. In bill dated 16.5.2004, meter no.
433943 was mentioned by the defendant and this meter was also
replaced at the back of the plaintiff and without his consent and this
meter was also removed by the defendant on 26.6.2012 in his absence.
It has been averred that thereafter, the plaintiff was called in the office
of defendants and he was told that seals of the meter were broken and
Jr. Engineer Shri Nagpal asked the plaintiff to sign on blank papers on
26.6.2012. It has further been averred that while the meter in question
was checked by the officials of the defendants, and alleged observation
of breaking of M.E seal missing of two seals, meter accuracy was
allegedly found slow, alleged both covers were also found, internal
circle was found tampered etc. as has been alleged in the aforesaid
provisional assessment order of the defendants were not in the
knowledge of the plaintiff and he never indulged himself in any manner
in said wrong and illegal act. On receipt of the alleged demand notice
dated 30.08.2012, plaintiff submitted his objection to the concerned
officials of the defendant's department but the defendants wrongly and
illegally did not consider the objections filed by the plaintiff. It has
been averred that 15 days time was given by the defendants to the
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141794
RSA-3549 of 2019 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:141794
plaintiff to file objection but the defendants had issued final order no.
912 dated 11.9.2012 before filing of objection of the plaintiff. Plaintiff
filed a complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat PUS Rupnagar on
1.10.2012 but the same was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction
alone. Thereafter, he filed CWP No. 16868 of 2013 before this Court
and the same was dismissed as withdrawn to seek remedy of statutory
appeal and then he filed review petition before the convener Designated
Auithority-cum-Dy. Chief Engineer/Op. PSPCL, Ropar who dismissed
the same vide order dated 27.11.2013. It has been averred that no
opportunity of personal hearing was given to him by the defendants
before passing order.
3. Upon notice, the defendants filed written statement and
took preliminary objections of maintainability and jurisdiction. On
merits it has been averred that a SP connection bearing no. 75/145 was
released in the name of plaintiff. A meter which was in order was
installed in his premises. He made a request for the permanent
disconnection of khata no. 75/149 SP and thereafter, a PDCO was
issued and the meter was removed from the spot in his presence and
sealed in the box. He also signed the seal box on 26.06.2012.
Thereafter, the meter was checked by enforcement staff headed by
Senior Executive Engineer (E) Mohali in the presence of plaintiff and
during checking, one ME seal was found broken and other was missing.
The accuracy of the meter was checked and was found 32.4% slow.
The meter body was also found tampered and counter lock was also
found broken. Videography was done at the spot and it was found to be
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141794
RSA-3549 of 2019 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:141794
a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, notice under Section 135 of
Electricity Act, 2003 was served upon the plaintiff on 11.09.2012.
Thereafter, he challenged the notice before Permanent Lok Adalat and
also filed Civil Writ Petition but the same were dismissed. Denying
other averments a prayer for dismissal of the suit of the
appellant/plaintiff was made.
4. Replication was filed by plaintiff reiterating the contents
of the plaint and controverting the written statement . On the basis of
the pleadings, following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
Declaration as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
Permanent Injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
4. Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred
u/s 145 of Electricity Act. 2003 ? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has filed a CWP before the
Hon'ble High Court, same was dismissed and
then the plaintiff filed a review petition before the
Designated Authority operation PSPCL ? OPD
6. Relief"
5. Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in
support of their respective contentions.
6. After hearing arguments and after appreciating evidence
on record, trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff vide judgment and
decree dated 04.10.2018.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141794
RSA-3549 of 2019 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:141794
7. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial
Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court,
which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.2019.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the
Courts below have failed to appreciate that appellant has been acquitted
in criminal case file against him under Section 135 of the Electricity
Act, therefore, the demand raised regarding compounding fee was
illegal and the same could not have been recovered from the appellant.
He further contended that findings recorded by both the Courts below is
the result of misreading of oral and documentary evidence on record.
He further contended that judgments of the Courts below being
perverse are liable to be reversed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the record.
10. Perusal of the record shows that appellant has challenged
memo No. 541 dated 22.3.2016 vide which the appellant has been
allegedly directed to deposit compounding fee but he could not prove
the same on record. Respondent-defendants produced on record memo
dated 30.8.2012 (Ex.D.8) requiring the appellant-plaintiff to pay
amount assessed as liability/penalty as well as compounding fee but
same has not been impugned by the appellant-plaintiff. In his affidaivt
Ex. PW.1/A tendered by way of examination-in-chief, appellant-
plaintiff PW1 has not deposed anything about the said memo Ex.D.8.
Memo Ex.D8 is dated 30.8.2012 whereas suit was instituted on
22.04.2016. Therefore, the lower appellate Court has rightly held that
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141794
RSA-3549 of 2019 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:141794
even otherwise suit filed by the appellant was barred under the
Limitation Act. Once FIR was lodged against the appellant,
respondent-defendants were very well empowered to offer the appellant
for compounding of offence under Section 152 of the Electricity Act.
Therefore, offer of the respondents for compounding of offence cannot
be termed as illegal.
11. Concurrent findings have been recorded by both the
Courts below and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show
that the same are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-
reading or mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record.
12. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law
has been raised or arises for consideration in the present appeal. No
other point has been urged.
13. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
07.11.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:141794
7 of 7
