VIJAYANDER SINGH Vs. DHBVNL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the order of assessment, issued by the defendant-respondents, vide letter dated 3.6.2009, requiring the plaintiff-appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 24,980/- on account of theft of energy and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards compounding charges, in case plaintiff-appellant wants to get the offence compounded. The aforesaid assessment and compounding charges are claimed to be illegal, un-lawful and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and a decree for mandatory injunction has also been sought for restoration of the electric connection, disconnected illegally along with refund of the amount with interest.

(2.) The pleading of the parties are that the plaintiff is having a small power category electricity connection under the jurisdiction of the defendant-respondents against which a poultry farm of small category is being run. Plaintiff has alleged that he has been making payment of electricity bills regularly without there being any outstanding amount against the connection but respondent No.3 has issued letter of assessment dated 3.6.2009 on the ground that the premises of the plaintiff was checked by a party of the defendant respondents , comprising of Junior Engineer, lineman and Assistant lineman. The date of checking is not forthcoming on the letter. It has been alleged that the plaintiff has been found involving in theft of energy by direct connection and, therefore, the assessment has to be made to the tune of Rs. 24,980/- and compounding charges were also proposed for compounding the offence. Plaintiff has alleged that these reports were not supplied to him and he procured the same with difficulty from the office of the respondents.

(3.) The defendant-respondents controverted the pleas of the plaintiff and submitted that false claim has been made by the plaintiff and he has not come to the Court with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts. As the plaintiff was found committing theft of energy, therefore, the Court has got no jurisdiction. The premises was claimed to have been rightly inspected by the team consisting of Junior Engineer, line man and Assistant lineman. It has been alleged by the respondents that the plaintiff refused to sign the checking reports and criminal prosecution was launched against him.