HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs TANUJ RASHI POULTRY FARM

THE facts in this First Appeal No. 414 of 1993 relate to alleged deficiency on the part of Haryana State Electricity Board in respect of wrongful disconnection of electricity of a Non-resident Indian Entrepreneur. Shri S.K. Gupta, owner and Manager of Tanuj Rashi Poultry Farm, a Non-Residential Indian, set up a poultry farm in village Kakar Majra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, involving an investment of about a crore of rupees. He applied for and secured an electric connection in November, 1990. From this period up to the month of July, 1991 two electricity meters were burnt but were not replaced in time though he had applied for it and made the necessary payments to the H.S.E.B. The main allegation of Shri S.K. Gupta is that he had to submit to the graft and illegal demand of the employees of the Haryana State Electricity Board and that he did because his business, namely, the poultry, is of such a nature that it cannot operate without electricity even for an hour. On the 18th September, 1991 Shri S.K. Gupta contacted the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Haryana State Electricity Board with regard to his complaint on unsatisfactory supply of electricity to his poultry farm. On being informed that the connected load was more than the sanctioned load he moved an application on 20th September for the extension of load and this application was duly received by the S.D.O. Thereafter, the allegation is that Shri CD. Sood, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, threatened the complainant with penalty for unauthorised extension of load unless his illegal financial demands were satisfied. In July, 1992 the electricity meter was burnt again followed by the burning of meter in August-September, 1992 resulting in the total disruption of electricity supply to the farm for 25 days and consequently the loss of 3080 birds. The value of this loss has been calculated at Rs. 1.50 lakhs at the rate of Rs. 50/- per bird. The complainant Shri S.K. Gupta made a specific allegation that on the 10th October, 1992 Shri CD. Sood, S.D.O. Shahzadpur, visited the poultry farm and later summoned him to his office. He threatened Shri Gupta with serious consequences, unless he was given some graft money. As Shri Gupta refused to give any more illegal gratification he was served with a letter dated 25th November, 1992 levying a penalty and other charges to the tune of Rs. 12,568/- which he deposited under protest. His application for extension of load was also not accepted inspite of many attempts made by him. Thereafter, he addressed a complaint to the Chief Minister of Haryana. Finding that no meaningful action has been taken by the Haryana State Electricity Board, Shri S.K. Gupta filed a complaint before the Haryana State Commission seeking a relief to the tune of Rs. 5.20 lakhs including the loss by the death of 3080 birds and also because he had to purchase a generator. The Haryana State Electricity Board denied all the allegations made by Shri Gupta admitting only that there was some defect in the transformer from which the electricity was being supplied to the farm of the complainant on the 4th September, 1992, stating further that the same was replaced on the 6th September, 1992. The stoppage of the electricity supply for 25 days, as alleged by Shri Gupta, was also denied along with any liability with regard to the burnt meters. It was also stated by them that almost all poultry farm owners do keep a generating set as a matter of prudence for ensuring uninterrupted supply of electricity in view of the delicate nature of this business. The Haryana State Electricity Board has also stated that on the 19th November, 1992, during the inspection of the premises of the complainant an unauthorised extension of load was discovered and, therefore, a penalty and other charges to the tune of Rs. 12,560/- were levied and directed to be deposited on pain of disconnection of electricity. Finally the Board denied any deficiency in the service of the supply of electricity.

AFTER going through the documents relied upon by the complainant as well as by the Haryana State Electricity Board and after hearing the Counsel for both the parties, the Haryana State Commission concluded that the allegations of the complainant as regards non-replacement of burnt transformer for a period 25 days and death of as many as 3080 birds stood substantiated on the basis of the evidence, oral and documentary, led by both the parties. In fact, the State Commission has pointed out that there was no choice but to accept the unassailed testimony on the point which was apparently not challenged for the reasons best known to the Haryana State Electricity Board. As regards the allegations of graft etc., the State Commission observed that it was a question of believing word against word in the absence of any concrete or corroborative evidence and, therefore, allowed the benefit of doubt to Shri Sood, the S.D.O. After a detailed consideration as re fleeted in their order dated 21.7.93 of the facts of the case and the material available to them, the Haryana State Commission allowed a relief of Rs. 75,000/- for the loss of birds etc. including harassment and other business loss. They also held that recovery of Rs. 12,560/- for unauthorised extension of load on the basis of inspection on the 19th November, 1992 was also not valid, and, therefore, directed that this amount which was paid by Shri Gupta under protest and duress should be refunded to him. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 87,568/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as against his claim of Rs. 5,28,500/-only.

WE have heard the Counsel for Shri S.K. Gupta as well as the Haryana State Electricity Board at length. On the basis of the material before us and after hearing their arguments we are of the opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the Haryana State Commission are based on cogent reasoning and proper appreciation of the facts in this case. We, therefore, see no grounds to interfere with the order of the State Commission and hence dismiss this Appeal. We are constrained to observe that the attitude of Shri Sood in dealing with the complaint of the complainant, Shri Gupta, particularly his action in penalising him to the extent of Rs. 12,560/- and recovering that amount on pains of disconnection has not been as is expected of a public servant. It would have been appropriate on the part of the Haryana State Electricity Board to make an inquiry into his conduct rather than wasting public money in this litigation. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Haryana State Commission, dismiss this appeal and further direct that the Haryana State Electricity Board shall pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the respondent.