Issuance of prior notice for disconnecting electrical energy is a must.

K.Govindarajan, J.

The defendants, having aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2003 in O.S.No.59/2002, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal, have preferred the above Appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit in O.S.No.59/2002 for a declaration that the disconnection of electrical energy of the plaintiff premises in pursuance of alleged notice dated 9.10.2002 is illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently directing the defendants to give electric connection to the plaintiff-company by way of mandatory injunction. The plaintiff-company is running an industry and service connection was effected to the said industry pursuant to the agreement dated 4.8.1997. On 8.10.2002 at about 17.30 hours, the 4th appellant along with the Assistant Executive Engineer/HT, Pondicherry inspected the service connection of the respondent/plaintiff-industry and they noticed certain violations. On 9.10.2002, a notice asking the respondent/plaintiff to show cause as to why extra levy for the violations set out in the said notice should not be collected from the respondent/plaintiff was issued to the plaintiff. On the same day, another letter was served on the respondent/plaintiff stating that "as the energy meter is not recording the actual energy consumed due to the above violation, it is considered necessary to disconnect the HT supply extended to your industry with immediate effect in the interest of this Department and to prevent loss of revenue to the Government." Simultaneously the power connection also had been disconnected. The respondent/plaintiff-company filed the above suit challenging the said action of disconnection and also prayed for reconnection, stating that the disconnection was without notice and without resorting to the procedure contemplated under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and so it is illegal. The respondent/plaintiff-company also denied the allegation of theft of electrical energy. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the non-disclosure of charge of theft of energy against the respondent/plaintiff on 8.10.2002 vitiates the entire proceedings.

3. The above said suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the above said grounds was defended by the appellants/defendants stating that notices were served by the Junior Engineer under due acknowledgment on 9.10.2002 and disconnection was made only in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. It is also stated that the suit is not maintainable as the respondent/plaintiff is having alternative remedy by way of filing Appeal.

4. The learned Additional District Judge in the judgment dated 27.8.2003 found that the disconnection of power supply to the respondent/plaintiff-industry is illegal and so the plaintiff can sustain the suit seeking for reconnection. On the basis of the said finding, the learned Judge decreed the suit only insofar as it relates to restoration of power supply by granting mandatory injunction.

5. Though the Court below has given finding to the effect that the disconnection is illegal, in paragraph 14 of the judgment while answering Issue No.1, no decree is granted with reference to the first limb of the prayer as stated in paragraph VI (a) of the plaint.

6. The points for determination in this Appeal are:-

(1) Whether the suit is maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff with reference to disconnection of power supply?

(2) Whether the judgment and decree granting mandatory injunction are sustainable without granting a decree with reference to the first limb of the prayer as prayed for in paragraph VI(a) of the plaint?

7. Learned Special Government Pleader for Pondicherry, appearing for the appellants/defendants submitted that the suit is not maintainable as the respondent/plaintiff is having alternative remedy before the appellate authority and so the Court below is not correct in entertaining the suit and decreeing the same. He relied on the decisions in Punja