HARYANA VIDYUT PARASARAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus M/S. SUPER STAR GRIT UDYOG

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 11-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1045 
~-
HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. 
A 
II. 
MIS. SUPER STAR GRIT UDYOG 
(Civil Appeal No .. 6618 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Electricity Act, 1910 - s.24 and 24A(i)(3) -
Theft of 
electricity - Electricity Board demanded penalty from c 
consumer -
Consumer filed suit for declaration with_ 
consequential relief of mandatory and permanent injunction 
- Preliminary objection by Electricity Board as regards 
maintainability of the suit in view of Haryana Amendment in 
the. Electricity Act - Trial Court over-ruled the objection and D 
-( 
held the demand memo as illegal and void "- First appeal as 
well as second appeal dismissed - Held: Though all through, 
the Electricity Board was . challenging maintainability of the 
suit, the Courts -below did not. consider the effect of the said 
·amendment in the Electricity Act - Also High Court did hot E 
consider the applicability and relevance of two relevant 
decisions of this Court - Hence, matter remitted _back to High 
Court - Electricity (Haryana Amf!ndment) Act, 1998. 
-~-<OI 
Appellant-Electricity Beard demanded penalty from 
Respondent•consumer for committing theft of electricify. 
F 
Respondent challenged the said demand and filed suit 
for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory and 
permanent injunction. Appellants raised preliminary 
objection that the suit was not maintainable in view of the 
Electricity (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1998whereby s.24 G 
of the Electricity Act, 1910 was amended. 
_,( 
The Trial Court over-ruled the preliminary objection 
and held that the demand memo raised was illegal, null 
1045 
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A and void. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the First 
Appellate Court which held that notice was required 
before any action was taken and further that reference to 
the electrical inspector was necessary; and in absence 
of evidence of some technical person regarding 
B commission of theft, the plea relating to theft could not 
be gone into. Appellants filed second appeal which was 
dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
C Court, the Court 
HELD: Though all through, the ~ppellants have been 
taking the stand about the maintainability of the suit, the 
effect o_f the said amendment in the Electricity Act, 1910 
was not considered either by the trial court or by the first 
D appellate court or the High Court. The applicability and 
relevance of decisions of this Court, wherein it was held 
that in case of theft, notice was not required and 
reference to the electrical inspector was not necessary, 
were not considered by the High Court. Thus, the order 
E of High Court is set aside and matter is remitted back to 
High Court for considering issues relating to 
maintainability of the suit filed by Respondent. [Paras 5, 
7 and 8) (1048-G; 1050-C-E-F] 
M.P. Electricity Board, Jaba/pur v. H1:3rsh -Wood Products 
>---~ 
F (1996) 4 sec 522 and Sub-Divisional Officer (P) UHBVNL 
G 
v. Dharam Pal (2006) 12 SCC 222, referred to~ 
Case Law Reference: 
( 1996) 4 sec 522 
(200&) 12 sec 222 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 7 
Para 7 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6618 of 2008. 
H 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.3.2005 of the 
HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. v. 
1047 
SUPER STAR GRIT UDYOG 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular A 
Second Appeal No. 931 of 2005 (O&M). 
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sanjay Singh, Sandeep Chaturvedi 
and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Appellants. 
Manoj Swarup, Akshat Goel, Uday Gupta and Kamal 
B 
Mohan Gupta, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing 
the Second Appeal filed by the appellants in terms of Section 
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'). 
' 
D 
3. Background facts, as projected by the appellants, are 
as follows: 
The respondent was given electric connection bearing 
No.LLS-42 by the appellant-Nigam on 11.10.2002. The 
E 
premises of the respondent were checked by the officials of 
the appellant-Nigam. It was found that the respondent was 
committing theft of electricity by providing bolt under the CT 
. --1 
Chamber of the meter. On removing the ea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.