The court held that the board had violated mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act by issuing supplementary bills and disconnecting the supply without obtaining a report from the Electrical Inspector regarding the correctness of the meter.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar dated 5.1.1990 whereby miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner against not granting injunction by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ganganagar dated 17.2.1987 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff filed a suit No. 1221/86 on 28.6.1985 before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar alleging inter alia that electric connection No. NP 9-352 of load of 50 HP was in the name of his father Sardar Singh the petitioner is using and consuming electricity. The petitioner requested on 10.5.1985 to increase the load from 50 HP to 75 HP. On 4.7.1985 the concerned Assistant Engineer accorded permission for extension. On 5.7.1985 he deposited Rs. 1166/- in lieu of demand. On 5.8.1985 L Form was deposited for the increase of the work-load of his meter. It was also alleged that he has completed all the formalities regarding increase of workload, so it was the duty of the respondent to record above fact of extension of load in their record, but despite that petitioner received supplementary bill on the basis of increased 21 HP load, @ Civil Procedure Code, 19080/-Rupees per kilowatt as surcharge, whereas the plaintiff was liable to pay only Rs. 1296.90. Thus prayed that bill issued by the respondents to be declared void and the defendants be restrained from disconnection of his electric connection. Plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for injunction.

3. The plaintiff-petitioner also filed a suit on 23.4.86 No. 221/86 for permanent injunction on the ground that respondents have wrongly issued bills for Rs. 38,666.48 paise on average basis for intervening period between 14.4.1983 to 30.10.1983, 27.2.1985 to 15.10.1985 and 16.11.1985 to 22.4.85. It was alleged that as meter was not recording actual consumption, so the bill could not be issued on average basis without there being any finding from the Electrical Inspector in view of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act. He also moved an application for temporary injunction that in the meanwhile his electric connection may not be disconnected and further prayed that in case it is found that the meter is not recording actual consumption the matter may be referred to Electrical Inspector. During the pendency of the application, connection was disconnected on 28.10.1988 as such plaintiff moved necessary amendments. The application for amendment was allowed. The defendant has filed reply to both the injunction applications alleging inter alia that the bills have been rightly issued. It was also submitted that during the inspection of the factory the electric meter was found defective and accordingly meter was changed on 23.5.1983. Again on inspection by Vigilance Inspector on 16.10.1985, it was found that due to defect, meter was only recording reading of ⅔rd consumption and thus the meter was again changed on 16.11.1985 and the petitioner had full knowledge. In the reply to the other application filed by the plaintiff, it was submitted that the plaintiff did not supply the capacitor and not deposited a sum of Rs. 940/- for the cost of the capacitor before 30.7.1986 for installation in the premises but used and consumed electricity though he was not entitled to use electricity and thus liable for penalty and no injunction could be granted. Since the reliefs claimed were not to disconnect the connection of the same meter in both the suits, the suits were consolidated. The Trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the injunction application on 17.2.1987. The plaintiff-petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ganganagar which was transferred to Addl. District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal on 5.1.1990 by a common order. Hence this revision.

4. I have heard Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the r