C.R.No.2934 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.2934 of 2009
Date of Decision 13.11.2009
M/s Yorks Plastics
........ Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board & Another
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Thiara, Advocate,
for the respondents.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 19.8.2006,
passed by the passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana
(Annexure-P1) whereby the application filed by it for temporary injunction
restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply to the
meter of the petitioner and also from recovering the amount of penalty from
it was dismissed, and the order dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-2) whereby
the District Judge, Ludhiana, on appeal there against affirmed the same.
In para 6 of its order, the lower Appellate Court while affirming
the order of the trial court recorded as under:
“I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and I
am of the considered opinion that the instant
appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is admitted
fact between the parties that initially the
C.R.No.2934 of 2009 -2-sanctioned load was extended from 79.847 KW to
298.012 KW and the electric connection was
converted into L.S. Category. The appellant had
approached the Dispute Settlement Committee for
the settlement of issues and had deposited 50% of
the alleged demand. The argument raised by the
appellant that the Dispute Settlement Committee
was biased as it comprised of the full time
employees of Punjab State Electricity Board holds
no ground because the appellant can not be
allowed to challenge the constitution of Dispute
Settlement Committee after having appeared
before the same and having been unsuccessful in
getting favourable orders from the same.
Furthermore, if the appellant had any grievance
against the order of the Dispute Settlement
Committee, it had the remedy to approach Dispute
Settlement Authority, which is appellate authority.
Although the civil court jurisdiction is not barred by
scheme framed by Punjab State Electricity Board,
by composing a Dispute Settlement Committee,
yet it does not take away remedy of the Dispute
settlement Authority i.e. the Appellate Authority.
The applicant is duty bound to make the payment
of the alleged demand, if it is proved that he
violated the Peak Load Hour Restrictions.
Therefore there is no prima facie case in its
favour. The balance of convenience is also not in
favour of the appellant and no irreparable loss
C.R.No.2934 of 2009 -3-would be caused to it, if the injunction is not
granted in its favour. If case is finally decided in
favour of the applicant/plaintiff, the money
deposited by the appellant can be adjusted in the
future bills raised by Punjab State Electricity Board
for the consumption of electricity by the appellant.
The judgment W.B.S.E.B Vs. Faqir Chand Rice
Mills and other (supra) relied upon by the
appellant lays down that only half the amount
should be directed to be deposited in the matters
of money claims. In the said judgment, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has infact observed that obligation
is cast upon the consumers to pay the amount
subject to the determination of controversy in the
suit and in the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme
Court directed the consumer of electricity to
deposit a sum of Rs.12 lacs within a period of two
months. Hence, the said judgment has not laid
down the law that only half the amount should be
directed to be deposited. Infact it says that at
least half of the amount would be directed to be
deposited. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal
and the same is hereby dismissed. The lower
Court file be returned alongwith the copy of this
judgment for compliance. The parties are directed
to appear before the ld. Trial Court on 21.4.2009.”
In view of the above observations of the courts below and for
the reason that no illegality or perversity could be shown therein by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any ground to
C.R.No.2934 of 2009 -4-
interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the
present revision petition and same is hereby dismissed.
Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
November 13, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE