203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-274-1993 (O&M)

Reserved on: 19.08.2025 Pronounced on: 25.08.2025 Raj Kumar Gupta (now deceased) through his LRs .....Appellant VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board and Another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondents No.1 & 2- ex-parte.

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff Raj Kumar Gupta to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Firozpur, whereby the appeal was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1991 of the trial Court were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed while permitting him to pay the disputed amount in four monthly instalments.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering an amount of ₹76,278/- as per memo number 1819/RA–3 dated 07.09.1988 in respect of electricity connection number 14–928, and for a mandatory injunction to restore the supply. He averred that he was running a guest house at Bungalow No. 121, Church Road, Firozpur Cantt. Defendant No. 1-Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PSEB)

sanctioned connection number 14–928 in his name. The bills were regularly received and paid. The last bill for ₹1,628/- was paid on 16.08.1988. The officials of the Board periodically checked the installation and seals and found them to be in order, including during inspection on 23.08.1988. However, on 07.09.1988, the officials of the Board accompanied by police disconnected the supply and, under threat, procured certain writings and his signatures. The plaintiff pleaded that disconnection without giving seven days’ notice was contrary to Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that the impugned memo claiming ₹76,278/- was illegal, arbitrary and unsupported by particulars.

3. The defendants filed a written statement admitting that the connection stood in the name of the plaintiff but denying that their routine checks established the seals as genuine. They pleaded that the Sub Divisional Officer does not possess the specimen of M&T seals which are kept confidential in the laboratory and with the flying squad. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the flying squad inspected the meter on 06.09.1988 and found the M&T seals to be fake. He recorded this finding in the enforcement checking register, removed the meter along with the fake seals, broke the seals, and packed the meter in a cardboard box. The defendants alleged that there was dishonest abstraction of energy by opening the meter cover and reversing the meter. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff executed an undertaking admitting that he was a first-time offender, agreed to pay the amount assessed, and undertook not to approach the civil court. The amount was calculated by taking 2244 units monthly as per PSEB instructions and demand of ₹76,278 was raised with intimation to the police. It was asserted that no prior notice was required where theft was detected and that supply would only be restored upon full payment.

4. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for?

OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

2-A Whether the plaintiff committed theft of energy in the manner mentioned in the written statement? OPD

3. Relief.

5. The parties led their respective evidence.

Findings of the Trial Court

6. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove that the plaintiff was found committing theft of electrical energy. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit, restraining the defendants from recovering ₹76,278 under memo No.1819/RA-3, dated 07.09.1988 in respect of connection electric number 14–928, and granted mandatory injunction directing restoration of supply.

Findings of the Fir