RSA No.238 of 2007(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.238 of 2007(O&M)
Date of decision: 19.2.2009
Ajay Jain ......Appellant
Versus
The S.DO., HVPN, Sub Division
Kundli and others ......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Mohunta Advocate for the respondents.
* * *
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff who was
consumer of the defendants vide connection No.MS-93R was found
indulging in theft of electricity energy on account of duplicate seals on the
meter of defendants. The defendants imposed penalty of Rs.5,92,338/-
upon him and raised the demand.
The appellant filed a suit against the defendant-respondents
seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining them permanently
from recovering the amount of penalty of Rs.5,92,338/- from him and also
restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity connection
and also sought restoration of electricity connection in his premises.
Hence, the suit.
Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement
taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that the
version of the plaintiff is concocted. It was stated that the checking was
conducted by the vigilance staff and the appellant was found indulging in
RSA No.238 of 2007(O&M) 2
theft of electricity. It was further stated that notice was given and a penalty
of Rs.5,92,338/- was imposed in accordance with law.
After perusing the evidence on record and hearing the
learned counsel for the parties, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the
trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.2006.
Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff filed an appeal before
the Lower Appellate Court challenging the same. The only point agitated
before the Lower Appellate Court by the appellant was that before
imposing penalty principles of natural justice were not complied with as
notice of assessment of penalty was not given. The Lower Appellate Court
vide impugned judgment and decree dated 5.12.2006 found that the
appellant was not given any notice before assessment of the amount of
penalty and reversed the findings of the trial Court on material issue and
held that the defendants are not entitled to recover Rs.5,92,338/- from the
plaintiff, further observing that the defendants can assess the penalty
afresh after giving 7 days’ notice to the plaintiff as required under the
agreement Ex.D1 and as a result thereof the appeal of the appellant was
accepted and the defendants were restrained from recovering the penalty
of Rs.5,92,338/- from the plaintiff on the basis of notice of assessment
dated 22.4.1999. However, the defendants were at liberty to make
assessment of the penalty afresh after giving 7 days’ notice to the plaintiff
as required.
Still feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree
of the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Since the findings on the material issues have been reversed
in favour of the appellant, I find no ground to interfere in this appeal filed by
the plaintiff.
RSA No.238 of 2007(O&M) 3
No substantial question of law arises.
Dismissed.
February 19, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE