ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. P SRIRAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendants questioning the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court decreeing the suit filed by the respondents plaintiffs. The suit was filed for 'permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering with the service connection of tiis plaintiffs or cutting the electricity supply connection to the plaintiffs' theatre Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Talkies and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from harassing the plaintiffs by making frequent visits particularly during the peak hours of the cinema shows and for costs.

(2.) The trial Court by its judgment dated November 30, 1975 decreed the suit as prayed for but subject to condition that the defend antsappellants are at liberty to inspect the suit premises viz., The Vijaya Lakshmi Talkies, after observing the procedure laid down under Section 20 (2) (b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The said decree was confir med in appeal.

(3.) The plaintiffs contended that they are the proprietors of Vijaya Tekshmi Talkies as well as another theatre called Vijaya Talkies in front of which there is a cool drink shop called Vijaya Cool Drinks, Guntur and a lodge called Vijaya Lodge at Guntur. The lodge was provided with service connection Nos. 1064 and 7174 of Guntur which the Vijaya Cool Drinks was provided with service connection No. 6918. The Vijaya Talkies and Vijaya Lakshmi Talkies are provided with service connection Nos. 9051 and 14012 respectively. It was alleged ia the plaint thut Sri N. Prabbakara Rao (D-2) who was recently posted as Assistant Engineer or of Electricity Board had some misunderstandings with the plaintiffs and out of sheer prejudice he began to victimise the plaintiffs systematically. According to the plaintiffs the 2nd defendant, under the guise of inspecting tha premises of the Vijaya Ledge, visited the premises on 22-5-71 aud issued a memo dated 22-5-71 slating that the consumer had tampered the meter scales and used different seals containing the impression A.P.S.E.B, and that the consumer had exceeded the contracted load in respect of the service connection of the lodge. The plaintiffs preferred objections thereto before the Superintending Engineer, Vijayawada. It is alleged that the 2nd defendant made an inspection of the Vijaya Cool Drinks bearing service connection No. 6918 and again arbitrarily assessed the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant thereafter visited both the theatres on 3-9-71, pulled the seals, verified the same, refixed the seals of both meters and put his own paper seals and went away without pointing out any defect. The 2nd defendant then sent another officer viz., the 3rd defendant to visit the premises on 21-9-1971. On that day the plaintiffs were busy booking the first show at about 5.30 p.m. and the 3rd defendant allegedly found nothing wrong either with the meter or other instrument but stopped the power supply for more than one hour. Having found nothing wrong ths 3rd defendant informed the plaintiffs that everything was correct and that the seal put up by the Assistant Engineer were also in order. Subsequently the 3rd defendant represented that the top seals of the meter appear to him to be counterfeit and that they required microscopic examination. But still he did not remove the seal. The plaintiffs therefore contended that they 'apprehended that the defendants 2 and 3 are bent upon harassing them and were acting mala fide and they are liable for damages. The plaintiffs therefore Claimed the reliefs mentioned above.