IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision:05.03.2025 Kulwant Singh .....Appellant Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sachit Khurana, Advocate for the respondents.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court on 06.02.2023. However, accepting the appeal of the defendants, the suit stood dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran on 23.01.2024.

2. Against the afore-said reversal, the plaintiff has approached this Court. According to plaintiff, after depositing requisite charges, Tubewell Connection No.AP-27895 was released and the same was installed in his land in the year 2016. It was alleged that defendants wanted to disconnect the said connection. Plaintiff sought necessary declaration and injunction.

3. Defendants opposed the claim by submitting that Tubewell Connection No.AP-27895 had been issued to the plaintiff due to misrepresentation of facts on the part of plaintiff inasmuch as he was already having Tubewell Connection No.AP-31-1014 and as such, plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands.

4. After framing necessary issues and taking evidence, suit was decreed by the trial Court but the Appellate Court has reversed the findings and dismissed the suit.

5. While accepting the appeal of the defendants, it has been observed by the learned Appellate Court as under:-

“11. After having heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent and perusal of the Electricity Rules and Regulations, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff undoubtedly was already holding tubewell connection in the same land under OYT category and concealed the facts for obtaining the second tubewell connection. He has also concealed this fact in the plaint. Sufficient evidence was not brought on record by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and for want of evidence the learned trial court had decreed the suit. I agree with the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants that to obtain the service by filing wrong facts which has a monetary value falls within the definition of valuable security. The tubewell can also be subject to sale for valuable consideration also guilt land. The plaintiff has concealed the facts in the present suit as well as before the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited for obtaining second tubewell connection for which he is not entitled. As such, the appeal is allowed and suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Assistant Executive Engineer of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited is directed to proceed in accordance with law for seeking prosecution against the plaintiff as well as the employees who had not verified the factum regarding the earlier tubewell connection for the same land and if they had connived with the plaintiff suitable criminal action is also required to be taken against the concerned employees respectively for allowing of second tubewell connection. Under these facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed and suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Learned trial court record be returned back along with copy of the judgment. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the plaintiff was already holding a tubewell connection for the same land. He does not even pray for any relief of declaration or permanent injunction as was prayed for in the suit. The only grievance put forth by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is regarding the directions given by the First Appellate Court whereby Assistant Executive Engineer of respondent- Corporation has been directed to proceed against the appellant as well as employees of the respondents for seeking their prosecution regarding no