SUB-DIVL. OFFICER, HSEB vs JAGDEV SINGH And RAJBIR SINGH

THE Haryana State Electricity Board, appeals against the order of the District Forum, Sonepat allowing the respondent-consumer''s complaint.

IN view of the very fair stand taken by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the solitary argument advanced, it is unnecessary to notice the facts and merits in great detail. It suffices to mention that the respondents jagdev Singh and Rajbir Singh are real brothers holding separate electricity connections bearing Nos. Z/50 and Z/6 respectively for their tubewells in village Turakpur. The case set up in the complaint was that Devender Singh S/o Jagdev Singh respondent had preferred a complaint in the District Forum against the appellants and offended thereby Mahabir Singh Dahiya, the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Board had issued a false and bogus bill in the name of their father Ramhet amounting to Rs. 5697/- against respondent No. 2 Rajbir Singh. However when the latter refused to pay and deposit the amount, the Sub-Divisional Officer aforesaid somewhat curiously issued another bill in the name of respondent Jagdev Singh amounting to Rs. 6121/- even though 32 units were consumed as per the meter reading. The firm stand taken was that the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer was totally mischievous in unauthorized shifting and shuffling liability from one electricity connection op to another. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was claimed for harassment etc. apart from seeking setting aside of the unwarranted charges. The appellant-Board took up a somewhat unusual stand on merits in their reply. It was pleaded that on the 25th of September, 1992 the officials of the Board had inspected the electricity connection No. Zl/6 and found Devender Singh s/o Jagdev Singh allegedly committing theft of electricity by abstracting the same from the Low Tension line of the respondents. On that premise a penalty of Rs. 5625/- was imposed in the account No. Zl/6 on the curious ground that Devender Singh aforesaid was grandson of one Ramhet in whose name the electricity connection had been originally sanctioned. However on respondent No. 2 Rajbir Singh protesting against the levy on the ground that his father Ramhet expired six years back and. he alone was the beneficiary of the said connection, the appellant- Board''s officials forthwith deleted the same and transposed and debited it to the account of Jagdev Singh respondent No. 1 bearing account No. Z/50. On that specious ground the levy was sought to be sustained.

The District Forum in terms noticed that initially the penalty and the levy was made against Rajbir Singh respondent for his account No. Z 1/6 but later the same was shifted to the shoulders of Jagdev Singh for his separate account No. Z/50. It held that no rule, regulation or any provision of law could be cited for such a transposition of liability and consequently set aside the same.

MR. Bhupinder Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellants was fair enough to state that he could not cite chapter or verse to put his finger on any statutory regulation or sale circulars of the Board which permitted the levy of electricity charges from one consumer to another having separate accounts. It was stated in terms that in law this could not be done. However the curious plea was that in equity some penalty be laid down because of the purported theft of electricity by one Devender Singh, who was the grand son of one Ramhet original holder of the sanctioned electricity connection. The sole submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants has only to be noticed and rejected. In the eye of law and under the regulations and sales circulars consumers holding separate electricity connections with their respective accounts are independent and distinct entities. It is elementary, and indeed conceded by the learned Counsel for the appellants that kinship was no ground for shifting liability for electricity charges admittedly imposed first on Rajbir Singh and then transposed clandestinely on to respondent Jagdev Singh.

WE are afraid that no equitable consideration or question of blood relationship can be brought into this field where the matter is governed by the clear cut provisions of law. The same can not be allowed to be circumvented or given the go bye. The District Forum in terms noticed that no rule, regulation or any other provision of law could be invoked in support of the appellant-Board''s action. That finding is impeccable and beyond the pale of challenge. Affirming the same we dismiss the present appeal without however imposing any costs. Appeal dismissed. _______________