Back
2010 (7) Supreme 499
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur — Appellant
versus
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.9651 of 2003
Decided on : 19-10-2010
Civil Procedure Code,1908-Sections 100,103-Second Appeal-A second appeal cannot be decided merely on equitable grounds as it lies only on a substantial question of law, which is something distinct from a substantial question of fact- The Court cannot entertain a second appeal unless a substantial question of law is involved, as the second appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous findings of fact based on an appreciation of the relevant evidence- The existence of a substantial question of law is a condition precedent for entertaining the second appeal, on failure to do so, the judgment cannot be maintained- The existence of a substantial question of law is a sine-qua-non for the exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. -It is the obligation on the Court to further the clear intent of the Legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same. (Para 13)
Facts of the Case :
Appellant herein in the instant case took a electricity connection for running a tubewell, from Punjab State Electricity Board .The average bill for consumption of electricity of said connection used to be around Rs.5,000/- per month . However a very high bill to the tune of Rs.82,300/- was served upon appellant by Board. As the bill was very high, appellant instead of making payment, filed suit challenging the said bill. Trial Court decreed the suit. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by Appellate Court. Second Appeal thereagainst was Allowed by High Court holding that since after correcting the wrong connection, reading of meter jumped three times, from the very beginning only 1/3rd of electric energy actually consumed stood recorded by the meter and that , such a recovery was justified.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that No show cause notice was given to appellant before revising the bill.No prior intimation of checking had been given to the appellant, nor was any responsible officer present at the time of checking. A copy of checking report/chart was not given to appellant for filing of objections nor was any show cause notice given along with the demand notice. Hence , it was a clear cut case of violation of the principles of natural justice as well as of clause 23 of the conditions of supply. Admittedly, no check meter had ever been installed and thus, it could not be held that meter did not record quantity of energy actually consumed. Trial court as well as first appellate court had considered all factual and legal issues involved in the case. While deciding the case, courts below had appreciated the relevant evidence including the chart prepared and so heavily relied upon by respondent-Board in correct perspective. As the Board did not install a check meter, readings shown by meter after correction of the connection could not be held to be correct. Subsequent to the correction, the readings had not been regular. Hence, the revised bill could not be held to be showing correct quantity of energy actually consumed by appellant. In such a fact-situation, there was no occasion for High Court to decide the second appeal without framing the substantial question of law and it was not a case which could warrant consideration under Section 103 C.P.C. Impugned judgment and decree was set aside and judgment and decree of courts below was restored. Appeal was allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - A second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only on a substantial question of law, which must be formulated by the High Court, and cannot be decided on equitable grounds alone (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Section 103 CPC allows the High Court to determine issues of fact only if necessary for disposal, evidence is sufficient, and the issue was not determined or wrongly determined due to a substantial question of law (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Violation of principles of natural justice or statutory requirements, such as no show cause notice before revising an electricity bill, itself prejudices the party without needing further proof (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment for failing to frame a substantial question of law and improperly interfering with concurrent findings without justification under Section 103 CPC (!) (!) . - No prior notice of meter checking was given, no responsible officer was present, no checking report copy was provided, and no check meter was installed, violating natural justice and Clause 23 of supply conditions (!) (!) . - Trial and first appellate courts correctly appreciated evidence, including the meter reading chart, finding the revised bill unjustified as post-correction readings were irregular (!) (!) (!) . - High Court erred by relying on the meter chart to conclude under-recording without addressing inconsistencies, such as lower readings post-correction (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2001 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1618 of 1998 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, as well as of the First Appellate Court.
Facts:
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter called the ‘appellant’) had taken an electricity connection on 15.6.1992, for running a tubewell, from the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the ‘Board’), for supplying water for daily use to the public of the locality at large. The average bill for the consumption of electricity of the said connection used to be around Rs.5,000/- per month and the said amount was paid regularly by the appellant. A bill dated 11.3.1994 to the tune of Rs.82,300/- was served upon the appellant by the Board. As the bill was very high, the appellant instead of making the payment, filed suit No. 304 of 1994 before the Civil Court challenging the said bill. The Board contested the Suit by filing a written statement contending that the connection had not been made properly and on checking, one of the Current Trap Potents (hereinafter called ‘CT’) was found to be reversed, thereby nullifying the action of second CT, as a result of which only one CT was contributing to the recording of the energy actually consumed. The meter was showing only 1/3rd of the actual consumption of the energy, and once the proper connection was made, the reading of the meter jumped three times. In view thereof, the account of the said meter was overhauled from the date of its installation and the fresh bill was rightly issued. The appellant filed a replication contending that no opportunity of hearing was given to it before revising the bill nor was the checking/inspection done in the presence of any responsible officer of the appellant. No notice was ever given by the Board to the appellant for inspection. More over, the appellant was not in a position to pass on the liability to its consumers.
3. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.5.1995, decreed the suit. The trial Court came to the conclusion that appellant had not made any attempt to tamper with the meter nor committed theft of energy. The defect was due to the negligence of the Board, and the appellant could not be burdened for the same. The trial court declared the said revised bill as null and void. Being aggrieved, the respondent-Board preferred an appeal before the District Judge and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.1997, holding that there was no justification for the respondent-Board to issue a supplementary bill arbitrarily.
4. Being aggrieved, the respondent-Board preferred Second Appeal No.1618 of 1998 before the High Court which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.1.2001, observing that after correcting the wrong connection, the reading of the meter jumped three times and therefore, from the very beginning only 1/3rd of the electric energy actually consumed stood recorded by the meter. Therefore, such a recovery was justified and there could be no equity in favour of the appellant to withhold the payment. Hence, this appeal.
Rival Contentions:
5. Shri K.K. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court committed a grave error in deciding the Second Appeal without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called ‘CPC’) as no substantial question of law had been framed by the High Court. The bill was revised without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The High Court recorded a perverse finding that after the correct/proper connection was made, the meter reading jumped to three time
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
