Daya Nand v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal. Both the Courts below have non-suited him in a suit filed by him seeking relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondents to restore his electricity connection. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. There is no dispute to the fact that the electricity connection of the plaintiff was disconnected pursuant to an inspection carried out by the Vigilance Branch of the Department. Though it has been pleaded that there was no theft of electricity as the seals of the meter were intact, but in the report which was admittedly signed by the plaintiff, it was found that the glass on the meter was loose and it has come into the evidence that it was re-pasted with an adhesive and the glass, if pressed, would stop the running of the meter disc. Thus, the other attending circumstances like the low consumption recording in the meter irrespective of sanctioned load of 10 H.P. on the meter of the plaintiff, clearly reflected about theft of electricity and ,therefore, a notice for recovery of Rs.83547/- was issued, but the plaintiff did not pay the said amount and accordingly his electricity supply Regular Second Appeal No. 521 of 2008 2 was disconnected. Interestingly, the plaintiff did not lay any challenge to the said inspection report in his plaint and thus, the maintainability of suit simplicitor for mandatory injunction for restoration of electricity connection, without seeking any declaration in respect of the impugned notice, was doubted by both the Courts below and accordingly the suit was rightly dismissed. It cannot be said that there is any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below or that the same are based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. February 17,2009 Jiten (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE