PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction has been decreed against the defendant, Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the Board ).

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed suit for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the Board to restore electricity connection bearing A/c. No. LD-4/298. Plaintiff alleged that on 16. 5. 1990, in his absence the Flying Squad of the Board visited his factory premises and disconnected the electricity connection and also removed the energy meter installed therein, without any reason and when he (plaintiff) reached the factory premises and objected to this action of the Flying Squad, the Assistant Engineer (Electricity) did not listen to him and obtained his signatures on certain blank papers. Plaintiff further alleged that he approached the S. D. O. who too did not listen to him and rather issued memo dated 17. 5. 1990 directed him to make payment of Rs. 30,819.00 on account of theft of energy. Further, according to the plaintiff, he took the matter to the Dispute Settlement Committee and deposited 40 per cent of the disputed amount at the asking of Dispute Settlement Committee, but Committee also did not look into the matter and decided his case arbitrarily. Plaintiff alleged that S. D. O. issued supplementary bill dated 21. 5. 1990. According to the plaintiff, the demand of the Board for recovering Rs. 31,696.00 raised through Memo No. 2174, dated 23. 10. 1990, is illegal. Upon notice, the Board denied the allegations of the plaintiff and maintained that electric connection of the plaintiff was checked by the Flying Squad and all the four M and T seals were found to have tampered with. The counter of the meter was also found to have been replaced and the meter was recording 10% consumption only. Defendant-Board also averred that plaintiff was found committing theft of electric energy and therefore, his electric connection was disconnected. It was further the case of defendant that plaintiff took the matter to the dispute Settlement Committee and the Committee after consideration of the entire matter, rejected his claim. Trial Court decreed the suit by saying that the demand could not have been raised against the plaintiff without referring the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector. It also held that recovery could have been made from the plaintiff only on being found by Chief Electrical Inspector that an amount is recoverable from the plaintiff. In appeal, first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal by the Board.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. On the facts proved on record, it stands established that dispute in the present case is not whether meter in question was correct one or faulty, but had been in regard to tampering with meter and commission of fraud. Exhibit D-l is the report of Flying Squad. The relevant part of the said report reads as under