Rajasthan High Court
Brijwasi Ice Factory vs Assistant Engineer City, ... on 9 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 447/2018
Brijwasi Ice Factory, H-32 Riico Area Dausa Khurd Through
Proprietor Bona Bahadur S/o Devi Singh R/o Mathura Presently
R/o Dausa District Dausa
----Appellant-Plaintiff
Versus
1. Assistant Engineer City, Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Jaipur, I.e. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Duasa
(Raj)
2. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Duasa Through
Assistant Engineer City, Dausa (Raj)
3. Joint Chief Engineer, Jaipur Zone Vidyut Vitran Near Ram
Mandir Jaipur
----Respondents-Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. O P Mishra
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
09/03/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal feeling
aggrieved of dismissal of his suit for declaration and permanent
injunction vide judgment dated 20.02.2018 passed by the Court of
Senior Civil Judge, Dausa (Raj.) in Civil Suit No.23/2000 and
which has been affirmed by District Judge Dausa, District Dausa
(Raj.) in Civil First Appeal No.4/2018 vide judgment and decree
dated 17.07.2018.
2. It appears from the record that the Rajasthan State
Electricity Board, Dausa made an inspection to the factory premise
of appellant and found that the electric meter is closed and not
(2 of 4) [CSA-447/2018]
operating. The Electricity Board made provisional assessment of
charges of consumption of electricity for the period during which
the electric meter was found not working taking average from the
consumption of electric units for the previous period and a notice
dated 21.10.2000 was served upon appellant for recovery of
Rs.1,76,296/-. The appellant assailed the said recovery notice by
filing a civil suit on 25.10.2000 alleging inter alia that the electric
meter in his premise was not faulty. The vigilance teem wrongly
made the seizure memo and arbitrarily made the provisional
assessment. Hence, it was prayed that the recovery notice be
declared as arbitrary, malicious, illegal, ineffective, null and void
and the Electricity Board be restrained not to recover the amount
of provisional assessment mentioned in impugned notice dated
21.10.2000. The respondent-Electricity Board submitted written
statement and denied the claim of appellant. The trial court vide
judgment dated 20.02.2018 came to the conclusion after
recording evidence of both parties that from documents Exhibit D-
1 to Exhibit D-6, it is established that the vigilance team made a
sudden inspection and found that the electric meter in the premise
of the plaintiff is not working and accordingly prepared a seizure
memo. In the seizure memo, it was noted by the vigilance team
that the electric meter was found non-working from 17.04.2000 to
30.06.2000. It was noted that although during this period,
electricity of 1034 horsepower was in supply. Accordingly a
provisional assessment on the basis of consumption of electricity
for the period from 01.07.2000 to 10.07.2000, an amount of
Rs.1,76,296/- was assessed for the consumed electric units by the
appellant. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence of both
parties has observed that appellant has not produced any
(3 of 4) [CSA-447/2018]
evidence to show the arbitrariness, maliciousness on the part of
Electricity Board in preparing assessment. It has also been
observed that the case of appellant was referred to the settlement
committee. The settlement committee, in its report (Exhibit 18)
observed that the provisional assessment is as per rules. The
appellant did not file any appeal before the higher officers of the
Electricity Department. It was observed that the appellant has not
produced any evidence to show that the provisional assessment in
the recovery notice dated 21.10.2000 is wrong and unjustified. It
was observed that the appellant-plaintiff has not cross-examined
the witnesses of Electricity Board on this point. With such findings,
the trial court also found that the appellant has not produced the
primary evidence and the documents placed on record are
photostat copies which are not admissible in evidence. The first
appellate court has considered the appeal on merits and affirmed
the findings and judgment of the trial court.
3. A perusal of fact findings recorded by both courts show that
the case of appellant-plaintiff has been considered on merits after
due appreciation of evidence on record. It has also been found
that the appellant has not valued his suit properly as per the
valuation of impugned notice and did not pay the requisite court
fee.
4. Learned counsel for appellant during course of argument
could not point out any infirmity/illegality/perversity in the fact
findings recorded by two courts below.
5. Having considered the arguments of counsel for appellant
and on perusal of fact findings as also the material available on
record.
(4 of 4) [CSA-447/2018]
6. This Court is of considered opinion that there is no
substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and as
such the same is not liable to be entertained.
7. Accordingly the second appeal is hereby dismissed. No order
as to costs.
8. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
