Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent has been accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside resulting into dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing recovery of Rs. 50,000/- of penalty imposed vide memo No. 670 dated 26.7.2005 forcibly, illegally from the plaintiff and also disconnecting the connection of meter bearing No. MF/21/0054 forcibly and illegally for all times to come, alleging therein that the electrical meter No. MF/21/0054 was installed in the shop of Dhajja Ram which adjoins the shop of the plaintiff and which had been purchased by him and accordingly, the plaintiff had moved an application to the department of the defendants on 4.2.2003 for shifting the aforesaid meter in his nearby shop. The plaintiff had been paying regularly his electricity bills and till today nothing is due against him, but on 23.7.2005 staff of the defendants illegally checked the premises of the plaintiff and issued an illegal memo No. 670 dated 26.7.2005 whereby they imposed the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- on the plaintiff on the grounds that he had shifted the meter in question without approval of the defendants in his nearby shop, whereas the facts remain that the defendants had already been intimated by him vide application dated 4.2.2003 Ex.P1. However, the plaintiff had been requesting the defendants several times to admit the claim of the plaintiff but in vain. Hence, the need arose to file the present suit against them. 3. Defendant No. 1 controverted the averments made in the plaint through written statement wherein it was stated that the plaintiff had shifted the meter in question without approval of the defendants in his nearby shop and he was consuming load 4.260 KW as against the sanctioned load 2 KW on the aforesaid meter. Therefore, the impugned penalty amount had been legally imposed upon him as per rules of the department. Hence his suit is liable to be dismissed with costs being frivolous and false. 4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. Therefore, the impugned penalty amount had been legally imposed upon him as per rules of the department. Hence his suit is liable to be dismissed with costs being frivolous and false. 4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After hearing arguments, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendants were restrained from effecting recovery of the impugned penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- and disconnecting the electricity supply to the meter No. MF/21/0054, without giving the opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff and without deciding his application dated 4.2.2003 regarding shifting of the meter in question in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.6.2007. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the meter in question was installed in the premises/shop of Dhajja Ram which was purchased by the appellant and further that he moved an application dated 4.2.2003 Ex.P1 for shifting the meter of the shop of Dhajja Ram to the shop already owned and possessed by him. It is further argued by the counsel for the appellant that it has been proved on record that meter reading was being taken by the staff of the defendants regularly and the bills issued regarding consumption of the electricity were also paid by him without any default and by not taking any action on the application dated 4.2.2003 and issuing the bills regularly amounted to consent on behalf of the defendants regarding shifting of the meter by the plaintiffs and thus the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is against the law and is liable to be set aside. 8. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and has argued that the lower Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding of fact that it is established on record that the plaintiff-appellant has sifted the meter to his other shop unauthorisedly and illegally and in such a situation, the defendants were bound to proceed against the plaintiffs in accordance with the rules for imposing penalty and the penalty imposed by the defendants upon the plaintiff cannot be termed as illegal in any manner. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undisputedly, the meter in question, which was installed in the shop of Dhajja Ram has been shifted to the shop of appellant and there is no sanction order for shifting the same. Simply because the plaintiff-appellant has filed an application Ex.P1 for shifting the meter in question will not authorize him to shift the meter in question on his own. There is no evidence that the shifting of the meter was authenticated by the respondents. But mere inaction on their part could not give any authority to the plaintiff to shift the meter to his other shop of his own, without any written authority of the defendant-appellants. The bills continued to be issued in the name of Dhajja Ram and not in the name of the plaintiff. He did not make any effort to get transferred the electricity connection in his name. The mere fact that the Meter Reader noted the reading of the meter regarding consumption of electricity in the premises of the plaintiff and the defendants used to issue the bills on that basis, cannot be taken to mean that the defendants accepted the unauthorized shifting of the meter by the plaintiff to his other shop as legal and valid. There is no evidence that the meter was never checked prior to 23.7.2005 by any competent authority and the shifting of the same to another shop was authenticated. Thus, looking from any angle, it is established that the plaintiff has shifted the meter to his other shop unauthorizedly and illegally. Under such a situation, the defendants were bound to proceed against the plaintiff in accordance with the rules, instructions and the circular for imposing penalty. Thus, looking from any angle, it is established that the plaintiff has shifted the meter to his other shop unauthorizedly and illegally. Under such a situation, the defendants were bound to proceed against the plaintiff in accordance with the rules, instructions and the circular for imposing penalty. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the defendants upon the plaintiff cannot be termed as illegal in any manner. 10. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of laws arises in the appeal. No merit dismissed.