Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board And Ors. vs Kuldeep Singh on 24 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)126PLR752
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J.
1. Kuldeep Singh instituted suit for permanent injunction against Punjab State Electricity Board and others restraining them from disconnecting electric connection or removing cable wire from five horse power motor lying installed in land measuring 24 kanals 10 marlas belonging to him. It was alleged in the plaint that he applied for five horse power electric connection. He had deposited Rs. 3500/- on 11.1.1991 vide receipt No. 177 on demand notice issued by the Board. Electric connection was given to him. On 18.3.1991, SDO Sub Urban PSEB, Mahal Kalan and Manjit Singh, Line Superintendent (J.E.) Sub Urban, Mahal Kalan defendants came to the said fields when he was irrigating. They told him that the electric motor was running and they should be given Rs. 1000/-. He rebuffed their demand saying that he would make payment of electric bills only and he would not make any payment over and above that payment. They became annoyed and threatened him that they would disconnect the electric connection. On 20.3.1991, they came to his field and threatened to disconnect and remove the electric poles and they were not allowed to do it.
2. Defendant-Punjab State Electricity Board filed written statement contesting the suit. It was urged that plaintiff had applied for five horse power electric connection and deposited Rs. 3500/- on demand notice. It was denied that connection was released or that motor was running at the spot. Notice was issued on 20.3.1991 calling upon him to submit test report. He submitted test report on 16.3.1991. Length of the line was found to be more than 70 metres. Plaintiff was asked to remove objection within seven days and if he failed to remove objection, the electric connection would not be released. It was urged that the plaintiff himself released the electric connection illegally and was thus committing theft of electricity. Place where connection was allegedly working was at a distance of more than 70 metres and not within the purview of the Electricity Board. Articles were got released from the store on 25.1.1991 and were kept in the custody of the plaintiff at his residence and the wire was also drawn from store on 2.2.1991 which was also kept at the residence of the plaintiff for giving group connection and the plaintiff taking the benefit of the articles got connected the electric connection of his own. It was urged that plaintiff by connecting the electric connection of his own got the order of status-quo from the Court. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file this suit? OPD
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and the defendants were entitled to claim special costs to the tune of Rs. 2000/- under Section 35A of CPC? OPD
6. Relief.
3. Sub Judge 1st Class, Barnala decreed the plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Punjab State Electricity Board from disconnecting the electric connection running at the spot and serving him and also from removing the electric poles or cable wire, in view of his findings, that the plaintiff had applied for electric connection and defendant Punjab State Electricity Board had issued demand notice and he deposited Rs. 3500/- towards the release of connection and that articles were got issued from the store by the officials of the defendants in the month of January, 1991. Test report was submitted. As per Sales Manual Instructions, it was verified and found to be within 70 metres of the poles of the Electricity Board and the release of electric connection was recommended to Executive Engineer, Barnala who gave priority number to the plaintiff. It was found that the plaintiff could not release electric connection of his own as it was to be released by a technical person. It was found that there, was no commission of theft of electricity by the plaintiff. As per Instruction 16 of the Sale Manual which is mandatory for the employees of the Board, the test report was to be verified within four weeks and the electric connection was given after observance of formalities. It was found that there was nothing illegal in the electric connection running at the spot. Plaintiff was directed to make payment of the entire amount towards the use of electricity from 2/91 to date with interest at the rate of 12 per cent annum as he had not made payment earlier.
4. Aggrieved Punjab State Electricity Board went in appeal. Additional District Judge, Barnala dismissed the appeal.
5. Still not satisfied, Punjab State Electricity Board has come up in further appeal to this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent was not given electric connection for five horse power electric motor. He had simply applied for electric connection to five horse power electric motor and deposited Rs. 3500/-. Demand notice dated 20.3.1991 was issued to him. In the test report, it was mentioned that length of the line was more than 70 metres and he was then asked to remove the said objection within 7 days or else the connection will not be released. It was submitted that plaintiff himself started the connection and began using electricity unauthorisedly. It was submitted that according to the circular of the Board 55/90, the maximum level of distance of single pole connection is 70 metres but in the present case, the distance was more than 70 metres. It was submitted that local commission also found this distance to be 70 metres. It was submitted that the scheme of the Board was to provide electric connection on priority basis in single pole scheme if distance of the place where the motor was to be installed was within 70 metres and the motor of the plaintiff being beyond a distance of 70 metres, he was not released connection but the plaintiff taking undue benefit of the fact that the articles for release of group connection, fitted the electric police cable wire of his own and got connection illegally and thus committed theft of electricity. It was submitted that court should not come to the aid of the respondent who is not paying for electricity charges though he is using unauthorisedly electricity. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that on the application of the respondent for the release of connection AEE had given certificate that he had visited the spot and verified that the distance was less than 70 metres, as such recommended for single police priority. It was submitted that after submission of application by the respondent. Assistant Executive Engineer visited the spot and found permissibility regarding release of connection. It was submitted that because the respondent refused to fulfil the unjust demand of the officials of the electricity board and, therefore, they invented the story that the distance of the motor to be installed was more than 70 metres and as such electric connection was not released and the respondent of his own connected the electric connection and started committing theft of electricity.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that local commissioner visited the spot and verified the facts. He found the distance to be 39 metres between the pole, and tubewell. There were four wires connecting the main line and pole. It was submitted that how it could be possible for the respondent to secure the electric connection without the intervention of the officials of the Electricity Board when the job involved was technical in nature.
9. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that civil court has no jurisdiction because statutory circular and instructions provide for decision on grievances by the Board itself. Section 4 Instruction 115(1)(b) of the Sales Manual indicates the procedure to be followed when the meter was found to be accurate, but the reading was inaccurate. It was submitted that civil court shall not be justified in entertaining the suit and giving declaration without directing the parties to avail of opportunity provided under the Indian Electricity Act and Indian Electricity Supply Act read with Instructions issued by the Board for the hearing of the aggrieved consumer. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar, 1997(3) R.C.R. (Civil) S.C.147. Suffice it to say, the facts of the case in hand are quite different from the facts stated in the above said authority. There the Board had given connection of supply of electric energy to Ashwani Kumar on January 16,1983. Since the meter installed suspected to have been tampered with was removed on May 8, 1984. On an application made by Ashwani Kumar, a new meter was installed on May 9, 1984. On March 18,1985 Bill No. 44 for Rs. 1,90,498.79 for the period December 1983 to January 16, 1985 was sent to Ashwani Kumar. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed the civil suit No. 85 of 1985 on March 25, 1985 for permanent injunction restraining the Board or its Officers from collecting and recovering the amount from the respondent which was decreed right upto the High Court. In SLP the Honble Supreme Court held that the respondent should avail the remedy granted under the Indian Electricity Act and Indian Electricity Supply Act read with Instructions issued by the Board from time to time for hearing the aggrieved consumer . In this case, there can be no question of theft of electricity by the respondent. His case is that he was given electric connection for his electric motor for which he had submitted test report. While the case of the Board was that electric connection could not be given to him because his electric motor was at a distance of more than 70 metres from the electric pole. Local commissioner found this distance to be 39 metres.
10. In my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent. Equity is also in his favour. If electric connection is disconnected now, he would be deprived of irrigating his fields with tubewell water. Decree passed by Sub Judge 1st Class has balanced the equities of the case between the plaintiff and the Board. For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed.