B DIVISIONA SIONAL OFFICER INDUSTRIAL A IAL AREA AND OTHERS v. NIPA INTERNA ERNATIONAL PVT. LTD
Case Details
RSA No.4015 of 015 of 2000 (O&M) - -1- IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR GARH 205 RSA RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.09.2025 Dat SUB DIVISIONA SIONAL OFFICER INDUSTRIAL A IAL AREA AND OTHERS ... Appellants Versus NIPA INTERNA ERNATIONAL PVT. LTD …Respondent ... CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:5) Present: (cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:5) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:5) (cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:5) (cid:5) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:27)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:30)(cid:15)(cid:5) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:6) *** *** AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present Regular Second Appea The Appeal has been filed by the appellan pellants- defendants, befo before this Court challenging t ing the judgment and decree dat e dated 31.07.1999 pass passed by the learned First Appe Appellate Court whereby the appe e appeal preferred by the y the appellants–defendants was dism dismissed and the judgment and decr d decree dated 30.07.1998 7.1998 of the learned trial Court was rt was affirmed. By the said decree, t cree, the suit instituted by ted by the plaintiff-respondent for g for grant of permanent injunction w tion was decreed, thereby reby restraining the appellants-defen defendants from recovering an amou amount of ₹53,720/-, sou , sought to be imposed as penalty vid alty vide Memo No. 2914 (Ex. P4) dat 4) dated 07.10.1991. 2. In brief, the facts are that the In b
Legal Reasoning
he plaintiff-company was a regu regular consumer of elec of electricity supplied by the defendant endants vide meter/account No.USP- -211 and has been reg een regularly paying bills in respect spect of the electricity consumed by ed by it PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 015 of 2000 (O&M) - -2- through the abov e above said meter No.USP-211. The . The plaintiff-company had been payi n paying all bills upto dat to date and the latest bills and recei d receipts were attached along with t with the plaint. On 21.09 21.09.1991, certain officers of the d f the defendants conducted a raid at t id at the premises of the f the plaintiff’s factory and they thr threatened to impose penalty on t y on the plaintiff on the g the ground of consuming more load e load than was sanctioned. Resultant sultantly, Memo No.2914 d 2914 dated 07.10.91 was served upon upon the plaintiff-company directing ing to pay inspection fe tion fee of Rs.100/-, to submit fresh t fresh test report of 19.732 KW, and al and also to deposit a pena a penalty of Rs. 53,720/- within 7 day 7 days, failing which the power supp r supply of the plaintiff intiff would be disconnected. Thus Thus, the plaintiff company filed t filed the present suit for it for a decree of permanent injun t injunction restraining the defendan fendants permanently from ly from recovering the alleged amoun amount of Rs.53,720/- and from taki m taking any action on th on the basis of the said illegal me al memo and disconnecting the pow e power supply of the pla the plaintiff company. It was further p rther pleaded that the sanctioned load d load of the plaintiff com f company was 53.128 KW and when when it was found insufficient, secur security of Rs.9,100/- was deposited vide receipt da ipt dated 1.3.90 for getting the lo the load sanctioned to 68. 68.436 KW. It is admitted fact that that Service Job Order No. 2219 dat 19 dated 22.8.90 was issue s issued by defendant No.1 whereby th reby the load was increased from 19.7 19.732 KW to 68.436 K 436 KW. Furthermore, while imposing posing the penalty, no rule or procedu rocedure was complied wi ied with, nor any inquiry was made. H Hence, the civil suit. 3. Upon notice, defendants contested t Upo ested the suit by filing written stateme tatement, taking prelimina liminary objection therein that the pl the plaintiff did not come to the Co he Court with clean hands hands as it did not deposit the penalt penalty amount. On merit, status of t us of the plaintiff as their s their consumer of energy was adm s admitted and also issuance of Mem f Memo Ex.P4 dated 7.10 d 7.10.91. It was pleaded that when th hen the raid was conducted, the plainti plaintiff- company was fou as found drawing extra load of 33.39 33.396 KW, and as such, it was righ s rightly PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 015 of 2000 (O&M) - -3- served with not th notice for disconnection of elec f electric supply in case penalty nalty of Rs.53,720/- impo imposed as per rules is not deposited posited. The defendants claimed that t that the plaintiff-compan mpany had a connected load of 53.12 53.128 KW against the sanctioned lo ned load of 19.732 KW, a KW, and thus, the plaintiff-company mpany was found to have unauthoriz thorized load of 33.396 K 396 KW, and the penalty was calculate lculated on this extra load as per rules rules. 4. The plaintiff filed replication, con The n, controverting the allegations in t s in the written statemen tement, and re-asserted the contents ontents of the plaint. On the basis basis of pleadings of the p f the parties, the following issues wer es were framed:- 1. Whether there is a valid valid subsisting arbitration agreeme greement between the parties? OPA. Whether the signatures of the 2. of the plaintiff were taken on blank a lank and printed forms? OPR. 3. Whether the defendants wer ts were ready and willing and are s are still ready and willing to refer the OPA. r the dispute to the Arbitration? OPA 4. Relief. 5. n order to prove its case, the plaint In o plaintiff-company examined as many many as four witnesses. sses. On the other hand, the defend defendants examined Sh. D.S. Yada . Yadav, HSEB, and there thereafter, the evidence of the parties parties was closed. No rebuttal eviden evidence was led. 6. On appreciation of the evidence, th On nce, the learned trial Court decreed t reed the suit for permane rmanent injunction, restraining the d the defendants from disconnecting t cting the electricity supply supply, culminating in the decree dated e dated 30.07.1998. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants Agg s filed first appeal before the learn e learned 1st Appellate Cou issed. te Court, which also stood dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the appella Lear ppellants submits that the impugn mpugned judgments and d and decrees passed by the Courts be rts below are based on conjectures a ures and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 015 of 2000 (O&M) - -4- surmises and, he nd, hence, liable to be set aside by thi by this Court. It was further argued th gued that the Courts below below have failed to appreciate the ev the evidence on records of the case. It ase. It is very well proved proved on record of the case that no at no communication or letter from t from the appellant-Board oard was received by the plaintiff intiff-company for the extension of t n of the load. All the for he formalities may have been compl completed by the plaintiff-company pany for extension of load of load but in the absence of grant of a nt of approval by the Board, it cannot not be presumed that th that there was sanction of extended l nded load. The plaintiff-company its ny itself could not extend xtend the load without any approval. U roval. Under such circumstances, the s the suit of the plaintiff w intiff was liable to be dismissed. It It is next contended that by mere merely completing forma formalities for extended load, the pla plaintiff-company was not entitled ntitled to use extended loa ed load until and unless there was app as approval in black and white from t from the Board. Hence, th nce, the findings of learned Courts be below on issue No.1 are liable to ble to be reversed. The fu he further contention raised is that t that the learned Courts below wrong wrongly exercised their j heir jurisdiction and the plaint should hould have been returned for arbitratio bitration. It was also urged urged that even on merit, the findings ndings of the learned Courts below on ow on all issues should hav ld have been in favour of appellant-B Board, but the learned Courts belo rts below have acted in m in most arbitrary manner. Lastly, astly, it is also submitted that on t t on the augmentation o ion of Electricity Act, 2003, the jurisd jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barre s barred. On the basis of th is of these grounds, it is prayed that j judgments and decrees passed by t ed by the Courts below be ow be reversed and the suit of the pla plaintiff-company be dismissed w sed with ghout. costs throughout. 9. Learned counsel for the responden Lear ondent-plaintiff/company, on the oth the other hand, supported orted the judgments and decrees pas es passed by the Courts below. It w . It was submitted that that the plaintiff-company had du ad duly complied with all requis requisite formalities for ex for extension of load, including subm submission of test report and deposit posit of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 015 of 2000 (O&M) - -5- security amount ount of Rs.9100/- vide receipt dated dated 1.3.1990. It is further pointed o inted out that the appellan pellant-Board itself acknowledged th ged the extension of load from 19.7 19.732 KW to 68.436 K .436 KW by issuance of Service Job O Job Order No.2219 dated 22.8.1990. .1990. It was contended nded that despite the above compl compliance and acknowledgment, t ent, the officials of the f the appellant-Board arbitrarily con ly conducted a raid on 21.9.1991 a 991 and issued memo No o No.2914 dated 7.10.1991, imposin posing a penalty of Rs. 53,720/-. It w . It was urged that the s the said memo was wholly illegal, llegal, arbitrary, unfounded and pass d passed without affording fording any opportunity of hearing to ing to the plaintiff-company. It is furth further submitted that ev that even the evidence of DW1 D.S. Y D.S. Yadav, an official of the appella ppellant- Board, clearly es arly established that no notice or repo or report was ever issued or supplied pplied to the plaintiff-com company prior to the issuance ance of the impugned memo. Thu o. Thus, principles of nat of natural justice were grossly violate violated. It was also contended that t that the plaintiff-compan any never consumed electricity bey ity beyond the sanctioned load of 68.4 f 68.436 KW, which stood h stood duly sanctioned and extended ended by the appellant-Board itself. T self. The penalty imposed posed on the alleged unauthorized loa ed load was therefore without any leg any legal foundation. Lear Learned counsel lastly argued that b that both the trial Court as well as t ll as the first Appellate C llate Court, after appreciating the ora he oral and documentary evidence, h nce, had rightly held the im d the impugned memo Ex.P4 dated 7.1 ted 7.10.1991 to be illegal, null and vo and void, and as such, no g h, no ground for interference by this Co this Court was made out. 10.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard the learned counsel fo I ha sel for the appellant at length and ha and have gone through the gh the record of the Courts below with w with their able assistance. 11. It is admitted factual position on r It is n on record that the plaintiff-compan ompany had applied for e for extension of load and had duly d duly deposited the requisite securit security amount of Rs. 9,1 Rs. 9,100/- vide receipt dated 1.3.199 .3.1990 (Ex. P1). The appellant-Boar Board itself thereafter i after issued Service Job Order No. No. 2219 dated 22.8.1990 (Ex. P2 x. P2), PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 015 of 2000 (O&M) - -6- whereby the sanc e sanctioned load of the plaintiff-com company was increased from 19.73 19.732 KW to 68.436 K 436 KW. This fact stands established lished not only from the documentar mentary evidence but also t also from the testimony of DW1, S W1, Shri D.S. Yadav, an official of th l of the appellant-Board itself, who candidly admitted in h ed in his cross-examination as under: nder:- “DW1 has stated in his cross-exam “DW examination that he has not bothere thered to check the papers i.e. application to c tion to the defendants for extension ion of load and depositing the requisite load isite security fees amounting to R to Rs. 9100/- vide Ex. PW2/A as per requir 9100 equirement of the defendants.” 11A. Ther herefore, the plaintiff-company ca any cannot be faulted or penalized f lized for any administrativ istrative lapse or delay in formal co mal communication on the part of t rt of the defendants. Onc Once the sanction stood granted anted by the appellant-Board throu through issuance of the f the Service Job Order, the argum argument that the approval was n was not conveyed in “bla in “black and white” is wholly untena untenable. The sanction emanated fro ted from the Board itself a itself and not from the consumer. The er. The consumer was, therefore, lega , legally entitled to consum consume the extended load. It is settle s settled law that an administrative del ive delay or failure of com f communication by the authority cann ty cannot be used as a ground to penali penalize a consumer, who who has complied with all statutory atutory requirements. The imposition sition of penalty vide mem memo dated 7.10.1991 (Ex. P4) was effected without affording a ding any notice or hearing earing to the plaintiff. Both the learned learned Courts below have held that su that such action is violativ iolative of the principles of natural atural justice. It has been consisten sistently reiterated that el that electricity authorities cannot, on ot, on their own motion (sua spont ponte), impose penalties nalties without affording the consu consumer an adequate opportunity unity of hearing. The im he impugned penalty memo thus thus stands vitiated. No perversi rversity, illegality, or mis or misreading of evidence has been p been pointed out by the appellant. The plea of the appel appellant that the dispute ought to h ht to have been referred to arbitration tration is PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 015 of 2000 (O&M) - -7- equally untenabl tenable. The Courts below rightly re htly rejected this plea as the arbitrati rbitration clause could not ld not override statutory obligations o tions of the Board, and once the valid validity of the penalty m alty memo was in question, civil ju civil jurisdiction was not ousted. The argument of lea of learned counsel for the appellant pellant-Board that as per provisions isions of Electricity Act, 2 Act, 2003, the jurisdiction of the Civ he Civil Court is exclusively barred h arred has no merit, as the as the assumption for any new law o law or statute is that it applies only s only to future events (p nts (prospective operation), not to ot to past events (retrospective effe e effect) unless and until until specifically stated that it is it is retrospective. Section 1 of t 1 of the Electricity Act, 2 Act, 2003 talks about the short title, e title, extent and commencement and it and it is mentioned therei therein that this Act shall come into e into force on such date as the Cent e Central Government may nt may, by notification, appoint. A nt. As per notification No.S.O.669( .669(E) dated 10.06.2003 6.2003, Gazette of India, Extraordinar rdinary, Part II, Sec. 3(ii), the appoint ppointed date for commen mmencement of the Act was fixed as xed as 10.06.2003, meaning thereby, t reby, the Electricity Act, 2 Act, 2003 has prospective effect. Th ct. The suit was filed in the year 19 ear 1997 and even the sec he second appeal before this Court is ourt is of the year 2000, thus, the Ci the Civil Court was well w well within its jurisdiction to entertain tertain the suit in question. 12. In view of the judgments passed b In v ssed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in Pankajakshi (D i (Dead) through Legal Represent sentatives and others Vs. Chandri ndrika and others (201 (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur aur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and othe others (2019) 17 SCC CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dea (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurchar charan Singh (dead) th ) through LRs and others, questio questions of law are not required to ed to be framed in secon second appeal before the Punjab njab and Haryana High Court who rt whose jurisdiction is cir n is circumscribed by provisions of Se of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts A urts Act, 1918. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 015 of 2000 (O&M) - -8- 13. As an upshot of above discussion, As a ssion, this Court finds no illegality a ality and perversity in the in the concurrent finding of fact rende t rendered by both the Courts below a elow and the same is uph s upheld. The regular second appeal is dismissed. 14. Misc. appl c. application(s) pending, if any, also s
Decision
also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWA (AM JUDGE EWAL) September 04, 2 Pankaj* , 2025 ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No. Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh