Civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging electricity disconnection for theft where statutory remedies are available. Furthermore, regulatory frameworks authorize immediate disconnection without notice upon detection of energy theft, such as tampered seals or non-functional meters.

JUDGMENT :

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

PRAYER

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs was partly allowed, thereby modifying the judgment and decree dated 02.05.1991 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Rajpura, dismissing the suit for declaration filed by the respondents-plaintiffs.

1.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court.

FACTS

2. The facts which are imperative to be exposited site for the adjudication of the case are that the plaintiffs, M/s Rupinder Stone Crusher through its Proprietor, had filed a suit before the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Rajpura (for short, the ‘trial Court’) for declaration, in which it is stated that the plaintiffs had been running a stone crusher at Village Lohgarh since 1974 and were consumers of electricity supplied by the appellants-defendants/Board and had been making regular payment for the electricity consumed.

2.1 The meter reading was recorded monthly by the Junior Engineer of the appellants-defendants and no irregularity had ever been reported, and the premises of the respondents-plaintiffs adjoin the office of the appellants-defendants, facilitating easy inspection.

2.2 It was alleged that the seals of the electricity connection of the respondents-plaintiffs were intact, yet the connection was wrongly disconnected on 20.07.1988, followed by a letter dated 21.07.1988 raising a demand of Rs. 47,860.21/- as penalty for alleged theft for a period of 30 months, Rs. 625/- towards cost of meter, Rs. 43,680/- for additional security and Rs. 1,629/- as surcharge for shunt capacitor.

2.3 It was further alleged that the shunt capacitor had been duly installed in the premises in question and a test report had already been submitted, and against a sanctioned load of 90 BHP, they had been using only 60 BHP, thereby negating any allegation of theft. At the end, it has been submitted that the disconnection had adversely affected their business, causing irreparable loss. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and injunction.

2.4 Upon notice, the defendants, Punjab State Electricity Board and another, appeared through counsel and contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein it was stated that the Junior Engineer visited the premises only for the purpose of recording meter readings and was not authorised to check the meter.

2.5 Further, it was submitted that vide letter dated 21.07.1988, a demand of `93,794.21/- had been issued, which amount was levied on the basis of the report of the Flying Squad of the Board, who inspected the premises on 20.07.1988 in the presence of Surinder Singh, Manager/representative of the plaintiffs, who had signed the checking report.

2.6 During inspection, it was found that the MCB seals of the KWH meter were missing, M&T seals were broken and hanging, seals of C.T. chambers were missing, and in collusion, the M.E. seal was found broken, and the KWH meter was found dead stop, thereby establishing a case of theft of energy.

2.7 Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 47,860.21/- was imposed for a period from the last checking dated 25.09.1986. It was further pleaded that although a 5 x 5 KVA capacitor was installed, it was found disconnected and non-functional, leading to a surcharge of Rs. 1,629/- for six months as per the Board instru