H.S.E.B. And OTHERS vs Laxman singh

THE Superintending Engineer, Haryana State Electricity Board appeals against the order of the District Forum, Faridabad granting the marginal relief of the restoration of electric power to the respondent consumer.

THE complainant-respondent is a marginal farmer who had applied for an electricity connection for his tube well which was accepted and approved by acceptance letter No. 3334 dated 10th of July, 1989. On receipt of the aforesaid communication, he approached the Junior Engineer of the department who demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for installation charges which was promptly deposited but curiously no receipt therefore was given to the respondent. However, the Junior Engineer alongwith his subordinate staff visited the site and got erected the electricity poles and cables to release the connection without any meter. On the respondent''s enquiry, the officials told him that power-meters were in shortage and therefore, the same would be installed in due course of time and in the meantime, he was allowed to consume the electric power and monthly charges of Rs. 100/- were charged and billed on average consumption. It was the case that the connection was installed in the month of April, 1991 but later in June, 1991, the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Board visited the site and demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in addition. On respondent''s plea of inability to pay such a huge amount, he was asked to sign certain papers and was threatened with disconnection of power supply. Within a week''s time thereafter, the electricity poles were uprooted and cable disconnected and carried away without the consent and even against the protestations of consumers. Subsequently, a penalty was sought to be imposed upon him for the alleged illegal connection despite the fact that the same had been duly released by the Junior Engineer on payment of the installation charges. Consequently, the setting aside of the penalty and the restoration of the connection as also compensation to the tune of Rs. 1000/- was sought. On notice being issued the appellants filed written statement raising a preliminary objection to which a reference is now unnecessary because they were neither pressed before the District Forum nor before us. Therein, the making of the application for the electricity connection was admitted as also the deposit of a security of Rs. 220/-. The somewhat curious plea was that the electricity poles were got erected by the Junior Engineer B.S. Dhanda and supply was given to the petitioner unanthorisedly by him for which he has been subsequently suspended by the Board.

The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases and the complainant stepped into the witness box as PW 1 and he was cross-examined at length without eliciting any thing meaningful. In rebuttal, Shri. R.N. Dua, S.D.O. of the Board and Shri R.C. Parmar, another S.D.O. stepped into the witness-box, and were examined on behalf of the appellants.

THE District Forum in a somewhat brief order adverting to the pleadings and the material before it, granted partial relief noticed at the outset whilst denying the one claimed with regard to penalty and compensation. Mrs. Sushil Dogra, learned Counsel for the appellants apparently for the lack of any meaningful argument on merits, fell back on somewhat technical pleas which were hardly relevant in the consumer jurisdiction. It was first sought to be argued that the Board as a legal person was in terms not impleaded as a party but only the hierarchy of officials namely the S.D.O. and the Junior Engineer were arraigned as opposite parties at the somewhat belated appellate stage and it was contended that the respondent-consumer be non-suited on that ground.

THE submission has only to be noticed and rejected. A perusal of the record would show that despite being fully represented by a Law Officer of the Board and the filing of a detailed written statement not a hint of an objection with regard to the non-pleading of the Board was taken. Equally, the issue was not even remotely hinted at the argument stage. What is more, even in the present grounds of appeal, not a hint or a grievance on this score was spelt out. It is elementary that jurisdictional objections have to be raised at the threshold of the trial, and not at the belated stage of the appeal proceedings after the issue had turned against on merits. THE somewhat super-technical submission raised on behalf of the appellants therefore, must fail. Mrs. Dogra had then placed reliance on Section 82 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1988. It was somewhat curiously submitted that no prosecution or criminal proceedings could be launched against any member or employee of the Board for any act both done or to be done in good faith under the Act. There is obviously no quarrel with the proposition that the Officers or employees of the Board are entitled to protection by virtue of said Section. Further it is manifest that herein no employee or Officer of the Board was made personally liable individually and no relief was claimed against them in their individual capacity. They were employees only by designations as the Superintendent Engineer, Sub-Divisional Officer or the Junior Engineer of the Board. Clearly enough the penalty imposed by the Board or the re-connection were not sought individually against any one of the parties. Consequently, we are unable to see as to how Section 82 can at all be attracted or the same in any way aids or advances the case of the appellants.

IN line with the tenor of the aforesaid submission, Mrs. Sushil Dogra had sought to rely on Section 19 of the aforesaid Act. Yet again there is no quarrel with the statutory mandate therein. But we are unable to see its relevance to the present situation and how it in any way further the case of the appellant.

LASTLY, Mrs. Dogra fell back on Section 39 of the Electricity Act. This pertains to an offence with regard to the theft of any energy and to impose punishment which may extend to three years or with fine. We must confess our inability to appreciate the relevance of this provision in the context of the present consumer dispute. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.