State Of Haryana vs Vinod Kumar & Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 7839 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Haryana vs Vinod Kumar & Others on 15 April, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050795




                                        2024:PHHC:050795
110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH
                           RSA-3071-1994 (O&M)
                           Date of decision: 15.04.2024

Haryana State through Collector, Hisar
                                               ....Appellant
             Versus

Vinod Kumar and others                        ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:-    Mr.J.S.Pannu, AAG, Haryana
             Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

1. In this Regular Second Appeal, the defendant (State of

Haryana) assails the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact

arrived at by the courts below, while decreeing the plaintiff's suit for the

grant of decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent

injunction directing the defendant to adjust amount of already recovered

electricity duty. The plaintiff was granted exemption from paying

electricity duty for a period of 5 years w.e.f 05.10.1981 to 04.10.1986 on

the ground that he has set up a new industrial unit in September, 1986.

The aforesaid exemption was withdrawn on the ground that in the

industrial unit, he has used old machinery previously which was used by

his father. Both the courts decreed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that

the plaintiff has not been granted opportunity of hearing before passing

the impugned order on 01.09.1986.

2. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length

and with their able assistance perused the paperbook alongwith the First

Appellate Court's record.

                               1 of 2

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050795




RSA-3071-1994 (O&M)                         2            2024:PHHC:050795

3. Learned counsel representing the State submits that

principles of natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the court

and in this case unless the plaintiff shows prejudice, the order should not

be set aside.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel representing the parties.

5. In this case, the allegation against the respondent is that he

has used old machinery of his father. However, such order has been

passed without giving opportunity to the plaintiff to prove that the

machinery is new. In this case, the facts were required to be proved by

the plaintiff. He has to be given opportunity to establish that the

machinery utilized for starting new industrial unit was new one and does

not belong to his father. In these circumstances, the argument of the

learned counsel representing the State lacks substance.

6. However, the courts below erred in failing to give liberty to

the State to pass fresh order after granting opportunity to the plaintiff.

Hence, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below are

modified and the State shall have liberty to pass fresh order after

granting opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff.

7. Disposed of.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

15.04.2024                                       (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                  JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :          Yes/No
Whether reportable :                 Yes/No



                                   2 of 2