RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 25.7.2008
Punjab State Electricity Board and others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Dara Singh ...Respondent
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: Mr. APS Mann, Advocate for appellants
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been filed by the Punjab State
Electricity Board against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by
the courts below. Respondent-Dara Singh filed a suit for permanent
injunction seeking a restraint order against the appellant- Board from
disconnecting the electric connection bearing Account No. H-405 in
the name of the plaintiff, respondent herein, in his agricultural land
situated in revenue estate of Village Harchandpura. It is the case of
the plaintiff that initially, electric connection bearing Account No.H-
74 was issued in the name of Dayal Singh son of Chanan Singh,
resident of Village Harchandpura. The said connection was
transferred from the name of Dayal Singh to the plaintiff and a new
account No.H-405 was allotted to him. Plaintiff paid the transfer
RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :2:
charges/fees vide receipt no.104 contained in D-31982 and since then
he is using the said electric connection and is paying the bills
regularly. It is further mentioned that a passbook has also been issued
to the plaintiff earlier in the year 1998. There was free electric supply
to the agriculturists under the government policy, and an
endorsement was made in the passbook, in this regard. In the year
2003, the plaintiff paid the consumption charges upto the month of
April, 2004 regularly. However, in the month of April, 2004, the
plaintiff approached the defendant-Board for deposit of the electric
charges. The employees refused to accept the consumption charges.
Hence the plaintiff filed the suit.
The defendants, on being put to notice, contested the suit on
the ground that the plaintiff has procured the transfer of electric
connection bearing Account No.H-74 from Dayal Singh’s name to his
name on the basis of the forged documents and an enquiry in this
regard was conducted by the SDO, PSEB and accordingly, the
connection was cancelled on 4.5.1998. Out of the pleadings of the
parties, the trial court framed as many as six issues. Both the parties
led their respective evidence. After appreciating the evidence, the trial
court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide its judgment and
decree dated 1.12.2006. The defendants filed an appeal against the
judgment and decree of the trial court which also came to be
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2007 passed by the
District Judge, Patiala.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Board has argued
that the plaintiff procured the transfer of the connection on
RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :3:
misrepresentation of facts and forged documents and enquiry in this
regard was held by SDO and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to enjoy
the electric connection. His further contention is that electric
connection bearing Account No.H-74 is still existing and is in
operation. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the
courts that the plaintiff has deposited the electricity bills right from
the year 1998 upto 2004 against proper receipts Ex.P-1 to P-4. It is
clearly established that the alleged cancellation on 4.5.1998 is only on
the papers, but never implemented. The so-called enquiry conducted
by the appellants-Board has also not been produced on record nor the
SDO who allegedly conducted the enquiry, appeared as a witness.
The appellants-Board also failed to produce any entry in this regard
regarding the existence and operation of the earlier connection
bearing Account No.H-74 in the name of Dayal Singh. Plaintiff has
proved by documentary evidence that electric connection bearing
Account No.H-74 was transferred in his name, after charging the
transfer fee on 16.1.1998 and a receipt No.104 was also issued in this
regard. Appellants-Board has also not denied the payment of the
consumption charges upto 2004. There is no material on record to
show that cancellation was made by holding an enquiry and after
providing opportunity to the plaintiff. Both the courts have recorded
concurrent findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises. I
find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE
25.7.2008
MFK
RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :4:
RSA NO.1275 OF 2008 :5: