Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UHBVNL & ANR versus SIRI PAL

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UHBVNL & Anr v. Siri Pal - CR-1671-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1811 (20 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR 1671 of 2006

Date of decision 28.3.2006

UHBVNL and another .. petitioners

Versus

Siri Pal .. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
PRESENT: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner M.M.Kumar, J.

The order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the learned appellate Court granting interim relief to the plaintiff- respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been made subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned appellate Court has found in para 19 of the judgment that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and he is likely to suffer extreme inconvenience if his electricity remains dis-connected or he is directed to fulfill the demand raised by the defendant-petitioners to deposit the whole amount as demand is perse illegal. Accordingly defendant-petitioners have been directed to restore the supply of energy to the plaintiff- respondent immediately and they have been further restrained from recovery an amount of Rs.36,53,383/- from him.

At the hearing learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has candidly accepted that electricity supply has been restored to the plaintiff- respondent and the order passed by the learned appellate Court stands complied with. However, the learned counsel has submitted that there is illegality in the impugned order with regard to staying the demand raised by the defendant- petitioner which is to the tune of Rs.36,53,383/-.

Having heard the learned counsel I am of the considered view that the learned lower appellate Court has taken into consideration the fact that doubtful seals and the electricity meter of the plaintiff- respondent were initially suspected to be duplicate/fake. However, all the seals were sent to F.S.L. Lab. t Madhuban for comparison with the standard seals during investigation of the criminal case which was registered against the plaintiff- respondent at the instance of the defendant- petitioner.

CR 1671 of 2006 .2.

The F.S.L. Madhuban has found that on 4.10.1999 that the seals belonging to the plaintiff-respondent were found to be similar to the standard seals in respect of shape, size and orientation of words. It has been observed by the learned lower appellate Court that once the seals are found to be in order by the FSL Lab. then no substance is left in the allegations of theft of energy. The District Attorney has also refused to agree for re- verification of the seals from a third agency because the verification carried by the government agencies like FSL Madhuban cannot be challenged. In any case no contrary report has so far been placed on record. In para 19 of the judgment, the following opinion was expressed by the learned lower appellate Court: "In view of the above discussion, it is held that plaintiff has a strong prima facie case. In case the electricity supply of the plaintiff remains disconnected or plaintiff is asked to fulfil perse illegal demand of defendants to deposit the amount, plaintiff is likely to face more inconvenience than the defendants and also would suffer an irreparable loss. Unfortunately, learned lower court, failed to appreciate the factual and legal position correctly and instead of granting the relief to a harassed consumer, dismissed his applications. In my opinion, the action in this case on the part of the defendants is an example of high handedness on the part of the defendants who have prima facie harassed the plaintiff despite the fact that doubtful seals observed by the checking party were found to be genuine by a Govt. Agency i.e. FSL Madhuban and despite that without any basis, defendants sought to recover a huge amount from the plaintiff." In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition because the discretion has been exercised on the basis of relevant considerations. No interference of this Court is warranted. Dismissed.

(M.M.Kumar)

28.3.2006 Judge

okg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.