R. S. A. No. 1352 of 2007 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. S. A. No. 1352 of 2007
Date of decision : 12.11.2008
Narender Kumar ..... Appellant
vs
U. H. B. V. N. and another .... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the
learned appellate court whereby that of the trial court, granting partial relief
to him was upheld.
Briefly, the facts are that the appellant/plaintiff filed suit for
declaration and mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent
injunction challenging the checking report dated 21.7.2002 and memo dated
22.7.2002 seeking to recover Rs. 3,86,524/- as penalty. It was further stated
that the appellant/plaintiff was running a factory for manufacturing the
plastic lums. The premises had been taken on lease from Shakuntla wife of
Prem Raj. The premises had a electric connection with sanctioned load of
18 KW. During the intervening night of 21.7.2002, the checking of the
premises of the appellant was conducted by the officers of the respondent-
nigam and it was found that the appellant was using load of 20.287 KW as
against the sanctioned load of 18 KW. At the time of checking, Vinod
Kumar Chowkidar of the appellant’s firm was present who signed the memo
of inspection. On the basis of inspection report, a notice levying penalty of
Rs. 3,86,524/- was issued. It was this notice which was impugned in the
suit.
Considering the contentions raised by the appellant/plaintiff
and the fact that prior to the inspection, on 29.6.2002 the Meter Reader had
taken the reading of the meter, and vide application dated 16.7.2002 the
appellant had informed the respondent-nigam about its being burnt and
R. S. A. No. 1352 of 2007 2
rejecting the plea raised by the appellant that factory, in fact, at the time of
inspection, was not running, the learned trial court directed for payment of
penalty for the period from 30.6.2002 to 21.7.2002.
Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court,
both the parties filed appeals before the learned appellate court, which were
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
in the present case cannot be made liable to pay any penalty to the
respondent-nigam as he was paying whatever bill for consumption of energy
was raised against him. His meter was burnt on 16.7.2002 and for that
information was given to the respondents on 16.7.2002 and even the
requisite fee for testing was also deposited on 21.7.2002. As the meter was
burnt and also the fact that some important part of the machinery had been
sent for repairs, the factory could not be operated. The report submitted by
the inspecting team about the factory being working at the time of
inspection was false. In fact, due to enmity signatures of the Chowkidar
were taken on blank papers which were misused against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that R. S. A.
No. 800 of 2007 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited vs Narender
Kumar filed by the respondents/defendants before this court, impugning the
judgment and decree of the learned appellate court in the present case, has
already been dismissed on 19.3.2007.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find
any merit in the submissions made.
It is the admitted case of the appellant that his meter was burnt
and for which information was given on 16.7.2002 to the respondent-nigam.
In a surprise check during night on 21.7.2002, it was fund that the factory
was running. The appellant was found to be using load to the extent of
20.287 KW. The meter was found to be burnt, disconnected from both ends
and the wires were connected directly with the line. Learned court below
did not find any defect in the inspection of the premises of the appellant and
also the report submitted. Even before this court, learned counsel has not
been able to point out any material on record which could enable this court
to record that the finding recorded by the learned court below on that issue
are perverse in any manner whatsoever. It was mere oral statement of the
R. S. A. No. 1352 of 2007 3
appellant that the factory was not running. On the basis of inspection report,
the appellant was issued notice for deposit of penalty for the period of six
months prior to the date of checking. However, learned court below finding
that the meter reading of the consumption of electricity was taken by the
Meter Reader on 29.6.2002, meaning thereby that the meter was in order on
that date, directed for payment of penalty only for the subsequent period
upto the inspection which as such cannot be faulted with. The findings
recorded by the courts below are plain and simple findings of fact giving
rise to no question of law much less a substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
12.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge