Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.S.E.B vs Chaman Lal on 30 September, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129775
RSA Nos.1583 to 1585 of 1992 (O&M) [1]
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. RSA-1583-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.09.2024
Punjab State Electricity Board
...Appellant
Versus
Chaman Lal Sachdeva
...Respondent
2. RSA-1584-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.09.2024
Punjab State Electricity Board
...Appellant
Versus
M/s Firm Sachdeva & Sons
...Respondent
3. RSA-1585-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.09.2024
Punjab State Electricity Board
...Appellant
Versus
M/s Sachdeva & Sons
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Ms. Iranpreet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate for the appellant.
(In all cases)
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 04-10-2024 08:11:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129775
RSA Nos.1583 to 1585 of 1992 (O&M) [2]
Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent.
(In all cases)
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CM-2274-C-1992 in RSA-1583-1992
CM-2282-C-1992 in RSA-1584-1992
CM-2283-C-1992 in RSA-1585-1992
1. These are the applications filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the present
appeals.
2. For the reasons stated in the applications which are duly
supported by an affidavit, the same are allowed and delay of 29 days in
filing the present appeals are condoned.
Main cases
1. The present order would dispose of three Regular Second
Appeals i.e., RSA Nos.1583 to 1585 of 1992 filed by the Punjab State
Electricity Board, Amritsar. RSA-1583-1992 is with respect to Civil Suit
No.168/05.01.1983/31.03.1984, RSA-1584-1992 is with respect to Civil
Suit No.122 of 05.01.1983 and RSA-1585-1992 is with respect to Civil Suit
No.5/129 of 05.01.1983.
2. In abovesaid three civil suits, recovery of various amount was
being sought by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as "the
plaintiff") from the present appellant-defendant. All the three suits were
consolidated and the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.09.1988
had decreed all the suits. Para 25 of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129775
"Issue No.8 (Relief)
25. In view of my findings, on the aforementioned issues
Civil suit No.5/129/5.1.83 Sachdeva and Sons Vs. PSEB for
recovery of Rs.10936-39P; civil suit No.122/128/5.1.83
Sachdeva & Sons vs. PSEB for recovery of Rs.8632-50 and
civil suit No.168/5.1.83 Chaman Lal vs. PSEB for recovery of
Rs.28283-12 are decreed with costs. A copy each of this
Judgment be placed in the file of civil suit No.122/128.5.1.83
Sachdeva and Sons Vs. PSEB and civil suit No.168/5.1.83
Chaman Lal Vs. PSEB. Decree sheets be prepared and file be
consigned."
3. Three appeals were filed by the present appellant against the
said judgment and the First Appellate Court without deciding all the issues
in the said cases had dismissed all the said three appeals while observing
that the said appeals were incompetent and had not been filed in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations. Aggrieved against the same, the present
three Regular Second Appeals have been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants in all the three cases has
submitted that the common judgment deserves to be set aside on a short
point and the matter deserves to be remanded back. It is submitted that the
Regulations which have been taken into consideration by the First Appellate
Court i.e. the Punjab State Electricity Board Regulations of Business, were
of 1960 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 1960 Regulations") whereas the
appeals had been filed on 22.10.1988 and 11.11.1988 and on the said date,
the said Regulations had been repealed and it is the Punjab State Electricity
Board Regulations of Conduct of Business, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred
as "the 1980 Regulations") which were in force. It is further submitted that
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129775
the relevant Regulations providing the details of the procedure with respect
to the filing of a suit and specifying the competent controlling authority
who was required to give sanction for the same were contained in
Regulations 25 to 27 read with Annexures A and B appended to the 1980
Regulations. It is further submitted that the 1980 Regulations much less the
Regulations 25 to 27, which govern the procedure with respect to filing of
suits, have not been considered by the First Appellate Court. It is submitted
that even the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in case titled as
The State Electricity Board, Patiala Vs. K.K. Bansal, SDO, reported as
1982 All India Land Laws Reporter 355, which had been considered by the
First Appellate Court also took into consideration the 1960 Regulations and
not the 1980 Regulations and in the instant case the First Appellate Court
has not even remotely considered the relevant Regulations which are
Regulation Nos.25 to 27 of 1980 Regulations. It is thus, submitted that the
statutory right of first appeal of the appellants has been taken away in a
casual manner by the First Appellate Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that
the trial Court had correctly decreed the suit of the plaintiff after finding the
same to be meritorious and has further stated that even in case the 1980
Regulations including Regulation Nos.25 to 27 along with Annexures A and
B were to be considered, then also the appeals filed by the appellant before
the First Appellate Court would be "incompetent". However, the fact that
the First Appellate Court had considered the 1960 Regulations and not the
1980 Regulations could not be disputed.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129775
perused the paper book.
7. The First Appellate Court had, while relying upon the judgment
of learned Single Judge in the case of The State Electricity Board (Supra)
made a reference to the 1960 Regulations and held the appeals to be
"incompetent" on the ground that the same have been filed without any
legal and valid authority. The operative part of the judgment passed by the
First Appellate Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"13. In an other authority reported as "The State Electricity
Board, Patiala Vs. K.K. Bansal SDO, 1982, All India Land
Laws Reporter 355" the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. V. Gupta as he
then was under para 5 page 356 has been pleased to observe
that there are regulations regulating the business of the Board,
known as Punjab State Electricity Board, Regulations of
business 1960. Regulation 8 thereof provides that every order
or decision of the Board shall be authenticated by the
signatures of the Chairman or a whole time Member and all
other instruments issued or executed by or on behalf of the
Board shall be authenticated by the signatures of the
Secretary, Deputy Secretary etc. The Administrative Member
of the Board has been assigned to take a decision regarding
'legal cases' under the distribution of duties and functions
allocated to the various members. In the given case in hand
there is nothing on the record to show that the Administrative
Member of the Board has been assigned to take a decision
regarding legal cases or for the purpose of filing the appeal
in these cases. My attention was also drawn to 'Murti Shri
Raghunath Ji Vs. Joginder Singh etc. 1971, Current Law
Journal, 47".
14. For the reasons given above, the appeals as they are
cannot proceed as the same are incompetent having not been
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129775
filed in accordance with the rules. Rather there is no legal and
valid authority, As such the appeals are dismissed as
incompetent. File be consigned."
8. It is not in dispute that the civil suits in the present case were
filed in the year 1983 and the first appeals were filed in the year 1988 and
on the said date, the 1980 Regulations were in force. Relevant portion of the
1980 Regulations is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"REGULATIONS OF BUSINESS
In supersession of order No.3098/PSEB dated
1.12.1967 and the various other additions/alterations made
therein from time to time, the Punjab State Electricity Board
is pleased to make the following regulations, in exercise of the
powers conferred by clause (k) of Section 79 of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 (LIV of 1948):-
1. These regulations may be called "Punjab State
Electricity Board Regulations of Conduct of Business, 1980".
These shall come into force at once.
Xxx xxx
25. No suit on behalf of the Board or Public Officer as such
shall be instituted/defended without the prior sanction of the
Competent Controlling Authority as per specimen copy of
sanction enclosed as Annexure 'B' to these Regulations.
26. For the institution of (i) a suit on behalf of the Board
(ii) the defence of any threatened suit to which the Board has
been made a party (iii) intervention by the Board in any suit in
which the Board shall/is interested or (iv) the institution or
defence of a suit by or against a Board employee in his official
capacity, the following officers shall act as Competent
Controlling Authority in matters relating to their charge:-
(i) Secretary
(ii) Chief Engineers
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129775
(iii) Chief Accounts Officer
(iv) Chief Auditor
(v) Superintending Engineer
(vi) Deputy Secretaries
(vii)Executive Engineers
27. The procedure laid down in Annexure-'A' to these
regulations shall be followed in matters provided in
Regulation 26.
xxx xxx"
9. It is the said Regulations read with Annexures A and B which
were in force on the date when the appeals were filed. A perusal of the said
Regulations would show that they have been passed in supersession of the
earlier order dated 01.12.1967. Moreover, the procedure which governs
prior sanction with respect to institution of suits on behalf of the Board has
been provided in Regulations 25 to 27 read with Annexures A and B. The
First Appellate Court has not considered the 1980 Regulations, much less
Regulation Nos. 25 to 27 and the said fact is apparent from the operative
part of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, relevant portion of which
has been reproduced hereinabove.
10. It is trite law that first appeal is a statutory right of the appellant
and thus, it is the duty of the First Appellate Court to adjudicate upon the
rights of the parties after carefully considering the relevant facts and law. In
the instant case, on account of the failure of the First Appellate Court in
considering the relevant Regulations, the right of the appellant of having
due adjudication of his first appeal has been taken away. The impugned
judgment of the First Appellate Court suffers from illegality and perversity
and has been passed without taking into consideration the relevant
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129775
Regulations.
11. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, all the
three Regular Second Appeals are partly allowed and common judgment
dated 27.03.1991 passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside and the
case is remanded back to the First Appellate Court to reconsider the matter
in accordance with law and to decide the Civil Appeal No.65 dated
22.10.1988, Civil Appeal No.66 dated 11.11.1988 and Civil Appeal No.67
dated 11.11.1988 afresh as expeditiously as possible.
12. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of
the maintainability of the appeals before the First Appellate Court as well as
on the merits of the case and it would be open to both the parties to raise all
the pleas as are available to them on both the said aspects and the First
Appellate Court would consider and decide the same in accordance with
law.
13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
30.09.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
