Judgment

Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Petitioner has laid challenge to the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, vide which suit for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction, challenging the amount of Rs.55,963/- of sundry charges as mentioned in the electricity bill for the month of June/July, 2017 for total amount of Rs.74,741/- including surcharge, LLI and its notice issued by the defendant on the basis of false checking. Plaintiff/petitioner claimed the aforesaid charges to be illegal, null, void and the plaintiff is not liable to pay the aforesaid illegal amount of Rs.55,963/- and interest/surcharge thereon. Permanent injunction was also sought, restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply of the house of the plaintiff on the basis of illegal checking report.

3. Plaintiff is having a domestic electric connection bearing No.8445501161 with sanctioned load of 3.000 kw. On04.06.2017, defendant issued LLI showing the case of suspected theft of energy. The meter of the plaintiff was allegedly inspected by the vigilance team on 04.06.2017 at 1.47AM (at night) by a checking team. The meter was not found blinking. LLI was prepared with the observation that the pulse of the meter was not blinking, but load was running inside the house. It was observed that the SDO Operation shall verify if there is any cut in the incoming PVC of the premises of the plaintiff on the next date. The aforesaid LLI (Ex.D1) was prepared on 04.06.2017, but the consumer was not associated as the raid was conducted during night hours. On the next day i.e. 05.06.2017, the team again inspected the meter. The seal of the meter was found intact. The team has not recorded anything in respect of blinking of the meter. No cut was found in the incoming PVC of the premises of the plaintiff. The meter was found installed at the pole near the house. In the PVC of the premises of the neighbour passing through the chhajja of the house of the plaintiff, a cut was found which was tapped by cello tape. On the basis of aforesaid cut, the report was submitted against the plaintiff. No illegal connection from the alleged cut was found in existence in the premises of the plaintiff as per LLI(Ex.D2) prepared by the team. Copy of the aforesaid LLI was supplied to the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of aforesaid LLI, Memo No.SDJC/2017/599 dated 07.06.2017 (Ex.D4) was issued to the plaintiff. On the basis of cut found in the incoming PVC of the house of the neighbour, theft was presumed against the plaintiff. The aforesaid notice was issued on the subject of order of assessment by licencee of theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Vide notice dated 07.06.2017 (Ex.D5),notice was issued to the plaintiff for compounding the offence of theft of electricity under Sections 135 and 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Simultaneously, an information was given to the police for launching of prosecution. No prosecution was launched.

5. After completion of pleadings, both the parties went to trial on the following issues:-

“1. Whether the bill of Rs.74,741/- for the month of June/July on the basis of LLI report dated 04.06.2017showing ‘a suspected theft of energy’ and illegal amount of Rs.55,963/- has been shown as sundry charges/arrear is wrong, illegal, null and void? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD4. Relief.”

6. Plaintiff examined herself as PW 1, wherein she has stated that on 04.06.2017, there was no theft of electricity committed by her, nor she had any knowledge about the visit of vigilance team in her premises. She stated that there is a double battery inverter installe