MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HOSHIARPUR versus PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 658 · Decided: 19-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 O] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 658 
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HOSHIARPUR 
v. 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9651 of 2003) 
OCTOBER 19, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss. 100 and 103 -
Second appeal - Exercise of powers under ss.100 and 103 
C - Conditions precedent - Held: A second appeal cannot be 
decided merely on equitable grounds - The existence of a 
substantial question of law is a condition precedent for 
entertaining the second appeal, and on failure to do so, the 
judgment cannot be maintained - However, there is no 
D prohibition on entertaining a second appeal even on a 
question of fact provided the court is satisfied that the findings 
of fact recorded by the courts below stood vitiated by non-
consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an 
erroneous approach to the matter i.e. that the findings of fact 
E are found to be perverse - The issue of perversity itself is a 
substantial question of law - Conditions for exercise of power 
u/s 103 - Explained. 
Electricity I Electric supply - State Electricity Board 
raised supplementary !revised electricity bill - Appellant-
F consumer filed civil suit challenging the same - Trial court 
decreed the suit - Order affirmed by the first appellate court 
- Second appeal - High Court reversed the decree of the trial 
court (and the first appellate court) - Justification of - Held; 
Not justified - No show cause notice was given by respondent-
G Board to the appellant before revising the bill - It was a clear 
cut case of violation of the principles of natural justice as well 
as of the conditions of electric supply - In any event, on facts, 
the revised bill could not be held to be showing the correct 
quantity of energy actually consumed by the appellant - The 
H 
658 
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HOSHIARPUR v. PUNJAB 
659 
STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
trial court as well as the first appellate court had considered 
A 
all factual and legal issues involved - There was no occasion 
for the High Court to decide the second appeal without 
framing the substantial question of law - It was also not a case 
which could warrant consideration uls.103 CPC - Judgment 
and decree of trial court (as affirmed by first appellate court) 
B 
restored - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss. 100 and 103. 
Natural justice - Principles of - Applicability of - Held: 
The principles of natural justice cannot be applied without 
reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case 
- In c~ses where on admitted and undisputed facts, only one 
C 
conclusion is possible, the application of the principles of 
natural justice would be a futile exercise and an empty 
formality -
However, there may be cases where non-
observa,hce of natural justice is itself prejudice to a person 
and the proof of prejudice is not required at all - Maxims, 
D 
"nemo judex in causa sua" and "audi alteram partem" -
Applicability of. 
E 
F 
The appellant-Municipal Committee took an electricity 
connection from the respondent-State Electricity Board 
for runnihg a tubewell. Dispute arose between the parties 
over a supplementary/revised bill raised by the 
respondent-Board. The appellant, instead of making the 
payment, filed a civil suit challenging the said bill. The trial 
court decreed the suit holding the said revised bill as null 
and void. The respondent-Board preferred an appeal 
before the District Judge, who dismissed the same 
holding that there was no justification for the respondent-
Board to issue a supplementary bill arbitrarily. On second 
appeal by the respondent-Board, the High Court reversed 
the judgment and decree of the lower courts holding that 
G 
there could be no equity in favour of the appellant to 
withhold the paYtnent. 
· 
In the instant appeal, it was contended on behalf of 
the appellant that the High Court committed a grave error 
H 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A in deciding the second appeal without meeting the 
mandatory requirement of Section 100 of CPC as no 
substantial question of law had been framed by the High 
Court; that the case did not warrant consideration under 
Section 103 CPC; that the High Court recorded perverse 
B findings in favour of the respondent-Board and that the 
bill was revised by the respondent-Board without giving 
any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the 
appellant. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Sections 100 and 103 CPC pro

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