Groovie Motel Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana State Electricity Board

Mahesh Grover, J.—The plaintiff is in Second Appeal assailing the judgments and decrees dated 19.5.1997 and 27.1.2000 passed by the Courts below. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from recovering the penalty of Rs. 47343.20. The averments made by the appellant in the plaint were that it was a consumer of electricity having a sanctioned load of 19.342 KW. in the hotel premises run by it. The appellant was also having a sister concern by the name of Ajit Theatres, Gurgaon. A dispute had arisen between this sister concern of the appellant and the respondent on the issue of payment of electricity charges bills which were inflated. A demand of Rs. 2,60,000/- had been raised on M/S Ajit Theatres by the respondent and this was questioned by the former in a suit filed on 8.7.1991. A compromise was effected in the said suit and the respondent had agreed to accept an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as against the original demand raised by it. On 25.7.1991, Assistant Director and the Director of the Vigilance Branch of the respondent conducted a raid on the hotel premises of the appellant and prepared a report showing that the appellant was utilising a load of 78.5 Kws against the sanctioned capacity of 19.342 Kws. A penalty of Rs. 47343.20 was imposed on account of this alleged mal practice being indulged by the appellant and this action was assailed by the appellant by virtue of a civil suit in which it prayed that the respondent be restrained from effecting recovery of the penalty amount and from disconnecting the supply of electricity to its premises.

One of the grounds on which the imposition of penalty was challenged was that the appellant himself had applied for enlargement of the sanctioned load and that the test report had been submitted and the matter regarding the sanctioning of the increased load was pending with the respondent when the raid was actually conducted.

The respondent resisted the suit of the appellant and stated that the Director, Vigilance of the Board along with other two officials based at Gurgaon checked the premises of the appellant and found the connected load of 78.5 Kws against the sanctioned load of 19.342 KWs and, therefore, justified the imposition of penalty of Rs. 47343.20. It was contended that the appellant was charged double tariff on its monthly consumption for the last six months prior to 25.7.1991 as per the sale circular which was prevalent at that point of time. The averments regarding mala fides were specifically denied.

On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the defendant is not entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 47343.20 from the plaintiff alleged to be compensation? OPPO

Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to sue?OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by its own act and conduct from filing the suit?OPD

Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs u/s 35-A CPC?OPD

Relief.

After perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion under issue No. 1 that the respondent had assessed the compensation/ penalty according to the rules and the appellant had failed to establish any illegality therein and, therefore, held that the respondent was entitled to recover the amount in question. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were held against the respondent. In view of its findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

In appeal, the lower Appellate Court recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the raid was conducted by the respondent and it was found as a matter of fact that the appellant was drawing electricity more than the sanctioned load. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed which has given rise to the present appeal.

Shri S.C. Kapoor, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the penalty imposed by the respondent was bad and was liable to be set aside as no notice was served upon the appellant before doing so. He urged that by not giving prior notice to the appellant before imposing penalty, the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment reported as 1993 P.L.J. 373- Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vesus Ashwani Kumar, wherein it was held as under:

Public authorities like the Electricity Board discharge important Government functions. A citizen depends on these authorities for the day to day amenities which are so essential for human existence. These authorities have thus a duty to act fairly, judiciously and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Their actions must conform to standards of public morality. It is not open to the officers to act arbitrarily and raise demands for substantial amounts of money without even affording an opportunity of hearing or representation to the citizen.

No one has appeared to argue on behalf of the respondent. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the record shows that Ravijitt Singh, Director of the appellant, while appearing as PW1, admitted that he had signed the inspection report and copy of the same was also received by him. The inspection report is a detailed one on the basis of which the electricity load of the premises of the appellant was found to be 78.5 Kws. In view of this, no separate notice was required to be given to the appellant as its Director was made aware of the mal practice that he was indulging in and was furnished with the report. Exhibit D3 is the intimation which the respondent had given to Ravijit Singh regarding the slow movement of the meter and this fact was also not denied by him while appearing in the witness box. The contention of the learned Counsel regarding violation of the principles of natural justice is also belied from the record and the testimony of PW1-Ravijit Singh himself.

For the foregoing reasons, the findings of fact which have been recorded by the Courts below do not warrant any interference in the Regular Second Appeal. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is dismissed.