Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 2886
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain
RSA No.2041 of 2016
Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors.
v.
Santokh Singh
{Decided on 02/05/2018}
Mr. Ajay Pathak, Advocate, for the respondent.
Electricity--Theft of Electricity--It was mandatory for department to issue notice to the consumer to show cause before proceeding to recover amount of demand notice
Headnote:
(A) Electricity Act, 2003, S.135--Theft of Electricity--Demand Notice--No show-cause notice was ever issued to the consumer before raising demand--Through the said demand notice, only three days’ time was given to the consumer to deposit the amount--The said action of the appellants-Nigam is totally illegal in view of the settled proposition of law of natural justice--It was mandatory for the appellants-Nigam to issue notice to the consumer to show cause as to why the amount of penalty and consumption charges shown in the demand notice should not be recovered from him and only thereafter should have proceeded further in the matter--Demand Notice rightly quashed.
(B) Electricity Act, 2003, S.135--Theft of Electricity--Inspection Report--Checking Team gave remark that consumer or his son refused to sign the inspection report--Held; Giving of such remarks is very easy being within the domain of the officials--Therefore, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence so to be led by the qua the above fact, the remark of the officials of the checking team in its report that the consumer refused to sign is not believeable, more particularly, when in most of the cases this illegal exercise is adopted by the officials of the appellants-Nigam to harass the general public at large.
JUDGMENT
Mr. Ramendra Jain, J. (Oral):- Unsuccessful defendants, after losing in two Courts have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal, challenging the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, whereby demand notice dated 06.01.2006 (Ex.P5) issued by the appellants-Nigam to the respondent-plaintiff has been set aside.
2. Put pithily, electricity meter of the respondent-plaintiff got burnt on 29.12.2005. On that very date, respondent-plaintiff informing the said fact to the appellants-Nigam, moved application for change of his electricity meter. Pursuant thereto, officials of the appellants-Nigam inspected the premises of respondent-plaintiff and reported about the burning of meter with seals intact on that very date. Showing non-availability of electricity meter in their stock, officials of the appellants-Nigam asked the respondent-plaintiff to bring a new meter by purchasing the same from the market from his own pocket. Respondent-plaintiff did so, but the officials of the 1 of 6 appellants-Nigam refused to accept the electricity meter so brought before them on the ground that the same was not suitable, forcing the respondent-plaintiff to spend further from his own pocket for purchase of second meter.
3. On production of the second meter by the respondent-plaintiff, the same was sent by the appellants-Nigam to its laboratory for its sealing purposes. Thereafter on 05.01.2006, the officials of the appellants-Nigam removed the burnt meter from the premises of the respondent-plaintiff without installation of new meter and issued memo (Ex.P5) on the very next date demanding an amount of Rs.2,25,800/- as penalty from the him levelling allegations that he was found committing theft of electricity. The respondent-plaintiff challenged the said demand notice (Ex.P5) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and got success vide decision dated 25.01.2007.
4. Being aggrieved, appellants-Nigam challenged the order aforesaid before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which directed the appellants to approach the civil Court showing its inability for want of jurisdiction to entertain such type of disputes. Consequently, respondent-plaintiff approached the civil Court by way of a suit for declaration that notice Ex.P5 was wrong and illegal. Relief for permanent injunction to restrain the appellants-Nigam to effect any illegal recovery from him was also sought.
5. The trial Court, after due notice to the appellants-Nigam and holding trial decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014.
6. Being aggrieved, appellants-Nigam approached the First Appellate Court, but remained unsuccessful as their appeal too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2015.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants-Nigam contends that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that their jursidiction was barred to entertain the suit of the respondent-plaintiff in view of the provisions of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the ‘Act’). The respondent-plaintiff instead of approaching the civil Court having no jurisdiction in view of above provisions ought to have approached the Special Court constituted under Section 154 of the Act. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments in Hari Chand v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another, 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 58 (P&H), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another v. Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Gorgaon and another, 2016(2) PLR 634 (P&H) and Sh. B.L. Kantroo v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 2009(1) AD (Delhi) 63.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff vehemently opposing the above submissions of learned counsel for the appellants-Nigam, pleaded the legality and validity of the impugned judgments and decrees.
9. Having given considerable thought to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, I find this appeal completely devoid of any
