Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 445 (PNJ)

Om Singh v. State Of Haryana

2000-04-26

R.L.ANAND

body2000
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. Om Singh (plaintiff in the trial court) has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1999 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Hisar, who allowed the appeal of the Haryana State Electricity Board and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi, who at one point of time decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:- The case set up by the plaintiff was that he was the proprietor of village Moth and had constructed a residential house and a tubewell on his land. Electric connection No. M-849 was given to Suresh Kumar for his tubewell and in May, 1992 said Suresh Kumar had given an application and on the basis of that application the electric connection was transferred in the name of the plaintiff on deposit of security and electric connection No. 1M-1210 was allotted to him. Thereafter he is making the payment of the bills regularly and nothing is due to the Board. But the Board wants to disconnect the electric supply of the plaintiff. The suit was contested on the ground that the tubewell connection was in the name of Suresh Lamba, who got the same disconnected but the S.D.O. of the Board has released the connection in the name of the plaintiff without any rules and regulations. Moreover, electric connection cannot be changed without the consent of the previous consumer. Suresh Lamba never gave any consent for the change of the name of the consumer. Therefore, the electric supply could not be granted to the plaintiff. 3. On these small pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the defendants are not entitled to disconnect the connection in question? OPP 2. Relief. 4. The trial Court for the reasons given in para Nos. 11 to 13 of the judgment dated 31.1.1997 decreed the suit and the said reasons are quoted as under:- "The controversy involved in this case is whether the electricity disconnection can be made without adopting the procedure. It is admitted case that the electric tubewell connection is presently in the name of plaintiff. 11 to 13 of the judgment dated 31.1.1997 decreed the suit and the said reasons are quoted as under:- "The controversy involved in this case is whether the electricity disconnection can be made without adopting the procedure. It is admitted case that the electric tubewell connection is presently in the name of plaintiff. However, the defendants alleged that the office of SDO, Narnaund has illegally transferred the electricity connection in the name of plaintiff and they are competent to disconnect the connection and disconnection order has already been issued vide Ex.D3? 12. The Law officer on behalf of defendants urged that the connection would only be transferred if the original owner has given his consent for this transfer. In this present case, no affidavit of consent on behalf of Suresh Lamba the original consumer in favour of present plaintiff Om Singh is there and defendants are competent to disconnect the electricity connection and can rectify their earlier mistake. 13. On the other hand the counsel for the plaintiff strongly rebutted these contentions and argued that the electricity department had changed the electricity connection in the name of plaintiff when he has complied with all the formalities and deposited the security etc. with the defendants and he is paying regular electricity bill to defendants. This fact is not disputed by the defendants and the only question which arises at this stage is whether the disconnection at this stage could be effected without issuing notice to the plaintiff. The DW/1 clearly admitted in his statement that no notice was issued to the plaintiff for disconnection. It is settled proposition of law that nobody should be condemned unheard and opportunity of being heard must be given to the party aggrieved and principles of natural justice must be complied with. But admittedly in this case no notice was given to the plaintiff before passing the order of disconnection. The plaintiff was allotted an electricity connection by a competent authority and same could not be disconnected without giving any opportunity to him. Thus, this disconnection order is against the principles of natural justice, and thus, cannot be upheld. The plaintiff is paying the regular electricity bills as such the disconnection of the plaintiff cannot be made except in due course of law. This issue is thus decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants." 5. Thus, this disconnection order is against the principles of natural justice, and thus, cannot be upheld. The plaintiff is paying the regular electricity bills as such the disconnection of the plaintiff cannot be made except in due course of law. This issue is thus decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants." 5. The Board filed the first, appeal before the Court of Addl. District Judge. Hisar, which did not agree with the findings of the trial Court and accepting the appeal of the Board for the reasons given in Para No. 11 of the judgment set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The reasons are as follows: "11. Ex.D1 shows that Suresh Kumar Lamba was consumer of the electricity and his electric connection was disconnected for one year as per this document Ex.D2 is the affidavit submitted by Om Singh but is clear that Suresh Lamba had not given any consent for the release of the connection in favour of Om Singh, plaintiff. As per Ex.D3 order for the disconnection of the electric connection of the plaintiff were ordered. The plaintiff has not produced on record any document to show that any consent was given by Suresh Lamba for change of electric connection. The plaintiff claims he is using the electric connection since 1992 and Suresh Lamba has given his consent in the same year but according to the record the connection was installed/released in 1994. There is no documentary proof on the file that connection No. 1210 was released in the year 1992. The documents filed by the plaintiffs have not been proved nor even tendered in the evidence. So, these cannot be considered. In this case according to the rules of the H.S.E.B. electric connection cannot be transferred in the name of other person unless previous consumer gives a consent in writing to this effect or if the premises is purchased by the consumer from the previous consumer or he entered into possession as a tenant etc. But these all things are missing in the present case. It is also not a case of the plaintiff that he has purchased the premises from Suresh Kumar Lamba. But these all things are missing in the present case. It is also not a case of the plaintiff that he has purchased the premises from Suresh Kumar Lamba. So, it is held that the release of electricity connection in favour of the plaintiff is against the rules and naturally the department has a right to disconnect electricity connection of the plaintiff as and when it has come to their notice. The department has started the proceedings of disconnection against the plaintiff in the year 1994 itself and the present suit was also filed by the plaintiff on 5.8.94. So, it is held that the defendants have rightly passed the order of disconnection of the electricity connection of the plaintiff bearing No. 1210. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to obstruct the defendants from disconnecting the electricity energy of the tubewell of the plaintiff. So, the finding recorded by Ld. trial Court on this issue is reversed. So, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the defendant-appellant and against the plaintiff-respondent." 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first Appellant Court, the present appeal which I am disposing of in limine after hearing the arguments of Shri Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate, who tried to make an endeavour that the suit of the plaintiff has been illegally dismissed by the first Appellate court. The counsel submitted that Shri Suresh Kumar Lamba was the owner of the electric connection and the electric connection has been transferred to the plaintiff when he purchased the land from owners. He also submitted that before passing the impugned order by the Board, the principles of natural justice have been flouted. The plaintiff has not been given the opportunity to present his case. I do not subscribe to the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In this case the connection was in the name of Suresh Kumar Lamba and it was disconnected on 10.5.1994. To this effect there is a statement of DW1 Kapil Bansal, who deposed that connection No. 1849 was in the name of Suresh Kumar which was disconnected on 10.5.1994. Vide affidavit Ex.D2 the plaintiff made a request for the transfer of connection in his name. He further stated that at one point of time the connection was wrongly changed in favour of the plaintiff. Vide affidavit Ex.D2 the plaintiff made a request for the transfer of connection in his name. He further stated that at one point of time the connection was wrongly changed in favour of the plaintiff. Also it has come in the statement of DW 1 that no consent was given by the original consumer. As per the rules, the electric connection could not be changed in the name of other person unless the previous consumer gives the consent in writing or if the premises are purchased by the consumer from the previous consumer or the present consumer enters into possession as a tenant. There is no consent in favour of the plaintiff by Suresh Kumar Lamba, nor the plaintiff has purchased any land from Suresh Lamba nor he has entered into the land in the capacity of a tenant. If the plaintiff has manipulated certain wrong order in connivance with the staff of the Board and against the rules, it will not provide him the protection for the utilisation of the connection in an illegal manner for all times to come. We have to see the right, if any, in favour of the plaintiff. If the right is not established, the plaintiff cannot use the electric connection which has already been disconnected at one point of time and when the plaintiff had not applied for any fresh connection. In order to get a fresh connection a separate procedure is prescribed which has not been adhered to in this case by the plaintiff. Though it is a judgment of reversal, yet I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the same which is hereby affirmed. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.