P.S.E.B v. Madan Lal

IN T

Punjab State Ele Madan Lal

CORAM : HO

Present: Ms

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre defendants PSE assailing the con suit filed by the judgment and d learned Additio

06.05.1993. Brief Facts

2.

Bri declaration and raised by the d illegal, arbitrar defendants to ad THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Pro

ectricity Board and Another VERSUS

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND s. Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal, Advoca r. Surinder Garg, Advocate for th -.-

ANNU, J. esent Regular Second Appeal h EB and another against the ncurrent findings recorded by b e plaintiff–respondent was decre decree dated 26.10.1990, which onal District Judge, Sangrur v iefly stated, the facts of the case mandatory injunction to the ef defendants vide memo dated 02 ry and discriminatory, and fu djust the said amount which was

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1863-1993 (O&M) served on:-15.10.2025 onounced on : 27.10.2025

....Appellants

....Respondent DEEP PANNU ate for the appellants. he respondent. has been filed by the appellan respondent–plaintiff Madan L both the Courts below, whereby eed by the learned trial Court v was subsequently affirmed by vide judgment and decree da are that the plaintiff filed a suit ffect that the demand of ₹13,92

2.06.1989 as additional charges urther sought a direction to deposited by him under protest.

- nts– Lal, vide ated for 20/–

3.

connection of 20 meter was insta electricity bills visit the premis defendant no.2 alleged that the meter and the c monthly consum the defendants a installed in the p plaintiff made a was checked by for its change o had been instal meter inspector PSEB, accomp suspected tampe was removed fo demanded a sum stated by defend The plaintiff, h demanded amou dated 02.06.198 e case set up by the plaintiff w 0 BHP from the defendant–PSE alled in his premises by the Boa issued by the defendants. The ses of the plaintiff every mon used to issue bills on the basi e meter reader was also duty bo condition of its seals at the tim mption of the plaintiff was about also used to inspect the meter. It plaintiff's premises was found to a representation to defendant no y the authorised representative of on 19.05.1989, having found all led in September 1988, and sin two or three times. However, on anied by police officials, vis ering with two M&T seals of t for testing and the connection w m of ₹9,320/– as penalty in add dant no. 2 that the case would be having no other option to con unt under protest. Thereafter, the 89, raising a supplementary dem

was that he had obtained an elec EB at Baretta Mandi, and an elec ard. The plaintiff regularly paid meter reader of the PSEB used nth for recording the reading, is of such readings. It was furt ound to check the operation of me of taking readings. The aver 1800 units. The Junior Enginee t was further pleaded that the me o be defective, and accordingly, o.2 for its checking. The said me f defendant no.2, who issued ord seals intact. The meter in quest nce then had been checked by n 31.05.1989, certain officers of sited the plaintiff's premises the meter. Consequently, the me was disconnected. The defenda dition to other charges. It was a reviewed after testing of the me ntinue his business, deposited e defendants issued notice no. 12 mand of ₹13,920/– which, accord

- ctric ctric d to and ther rage r of eter eter ders tion f the and eter ants also eter.

to the plaintiff, pleaded that the could not be re tampered with. Hence, the supp arbitrary and wi

4.

In t the suit was not Court fee and jurisdiction to e act and conduct was duty bound authorised repre the premises mo clarified that the It was further al Squad, PSEB, K plaintiff's premi with. It was, the was found to b two paper seals, signed the chec testing purpose readiness to dep that the amoun was wholly illegal, arbitrary ere were four M&T seals on th emoved by tampering only two No notice was issued to the pl plementary demand raised by ithout jurisdiction. the written statement filed by th maintainable and had not been jurisdiction. It was further ple entertain the matter and that the t from filing the suit. On merits d to ensure that no seal of the esentative of the Board. It was ad onthly and the bills were duly pa e duty of the meter reader was c lleged that on 31.05.1989, the A Khanna, along with other PSEB ises and found that all four M&T erefore, a clear case of theft of el e 15.400 KW. The meter was r , and checked in the presence of king report. It was denied that es. The plaintiff, vide applica posit the penalty and accordingly nt was paid under protest. T

and discriminatory. It was furt e meter and the body of the me o seals, which, in fact, were ne laintiff for inspection of the me the defendants was claimed to he defendants, it was submitted t properly valued for the purposes eaded that the civil Court had plaintiff was estopped by his o s, it was averred that the consum e meter was broken except by dmitted that the meter reader visi aid by the plaintiff; however, it w confined to recording readings on Assistant Electrical Engineer, Fly B officials and police, inspected T seals of the meter were tampe ectrical energy. The connected lo removed, sealed in cardboard w f the plaintiff's representative, w the meter was removed merely ation dated 02.06.1989, expres y deposited ₹13,920/–. It was den The amount was demanded a

- ther eter ever eter. be that s of own mer y an ited was nly. ying ered oad with who for ssed nied

overhauling the theft, in accorda On the request penalty. It was,

5.

Fro following issues

1.

¶2pra

¶3suit

4.

6.

Bot Findings of the

7.

arguments of bo made an applica much prior to th the meter was de

8.

raised a demand without verifyin officials failed tampered with t the premises reg account of the plaintiff for a pe ance with the directions issued b of the plaintiff, his supply was therefore, prayed that the suit be om the pleadings of the parties, s: Whether the demand of ₹13,9 Whether the plaintiff is entit ayed for? OPP Whether the civil Court has t? OPD Relief. th the parties have led their respe e learned trial Court e trial Court, after examinin oth sides, held that the plaintiff h ation to the PSEB for checking he alleged inspection by the Flyi efective and orders for its replac e Court observed that the Flyi d without consulting the conce ng the record regarding the def to produce any report or evide the M&T seals. It was also noted gularly, never reported any tampe

eriod of three years from the date by the Flying Squad, PSEB Khan s restored after the payment of e dismissed. the learned trial Court framed 920/– is illegal and void? OPP tled to declaration and injunction s no jurisdiction to try the pres ective evidence. ng the pleadings, evidence, a had successfully proved that he h g and changing the defective me ing Squad. The records showed t cement had already been issued. ing Squad conducted the raid erned SDO or Junior Engineer fective condition of the meter. T ence showing that the plaintiff h d that the meter reader, who visi ering or irregularity.

- e of nna. n as sent and had eter that and and had

9.

was consistent, allegation of the of the plaintiff o could not be rel by overhauling was illegal, arbi

10.

Acc declaring the de plaintiff was ent 3, the Court he jurisdiction to e was decreed in protest be adjust Findings of lear

11.

and examining appellants–PSEB case of theft of and 3 were erro not supported by

12.

It w mill (chakki), w payment of bills

27.04.1989 seek e Court further observed that the ranging between 1200 to 1500 u eft of energy. The testing of the or any authorized representative, lied upon. The Court held that th the plaintiff's account for three trary, and void. cordingly, Issue No. 1 was d emand of ₹13,920/– as illegal. O titled to the declaration and inju eld that since the demand itsel entertain the suit. Consequently, favour of the plaintiff, directin ted and the illegal demand be set rned lower appellate Court e lower appellate Court, after h the record, found no merit B. The learned counsel for the energy and that the findings of oneous. However, the appellate C y any evidence on record. was observed that the respondent was a regular consumer of elec s. The plaintiff had moved an ap king replacement of a defective

e plaintiff's electricity consumpt units per month, which negated meter was not done in the prese , and the report of the Flying Squ he demand raised by the defenda years on the plea of theft of ene decided in favour of the plaint On Issue No. 2, it was held that unction as prayed for. On Issue N lf was illegal, the civil Court h under Issue No. 4 (Relief), the ng that the amount deposited un t aside. hearing the arguments of both si in the appeal preferred by appellants contended that it wa the trial Court on Issues Nos. 1 Court held that this contention w t–plaintiff, who was running a fl ctricity and had never defaulted pplication (Ex. P2) to the PSEB meter, and although orders for

- tion nce uad ants ergy tiff, No. had suit nder ides as a , 2, was lour d in B on

change were ma that the Flying consulting the c complaint or app

13.

premises month Once the plaint duty of the elec Squad's inferenc

14.

plaintiff ranged usage and ruled concluded that t imposed by the

15.

held to be just a be without subs given the peculi

16.

Fee below, the prese which was conte Submissions of

17.

It h findings recorde conjectures and ade, no action was taken by the Squad conducted the raid and oncerned SDO or Junior Engine plication of the plaintiff regardin e appellate Court also noted hly and had never reported any tiff had formally reported that h ctricity authorities to get it check ce of theft was held to be unjusti e Court observed that the aver between 1200 to 1700 units, wh d out any direct or pilfered supp the case was not one of theft or p PSEB was illegal and unwarrant e findings of the learned trial Co and proper, and were accordingly stance and was dismissed, thou iar circumstances of the case. eling aggrieved by the above sai ent Regular Second Appeal has b ested by the respondent–plaintiff f learned counsel for the appell has been argued by the learned ed by both the Courts below are surmises, without properly app

e appellants. The Court further h d disconnected the supply with er, and without verifying the ear ng the meter's defectiveness. that the meter reader visited tampering of seals or irregular his meter was defective, it was ked or replaced. Instead, the Fly ified. rage monthly consumption of hich showed a consistent pattern ply of electricity. Therefore, it w pilferage of energy, and the pena ted. ourt on Issues Nos. 1, 2, and 3 w y affirmed. The appeal was found ugh without any order as to co id concurrent findings of the Cou been filed by the appellants–PSE f. lants counsel for the appellants that e erroneous, perverse and based preciating the documentary and o

- held hout rlier rity. ying n of was alty were d to osts, urts EB, d on

evidence brough consider that th conducted an in that all four M& a case of theft o Circulars of the

18.

It is the meter reader the duty of the tampering or m inspection, had of the plaintiff pilferage of ene towards penalty present suit.

19.

below that the d The amount of Instructions, and the consumer.

20.

It i civil Court has assessment or d counsel relied u Mahesh Kuma ht on record. It is submitted tha he Flying Squad of the PSEB nspection of the premises of the r &T seals of the meter were tampe of electrical energy under the R Board. s further contended that the lowe r was duty bound to check the t meter reader is only to record manipulation of seals. The F detected the tampering, and the f–consumer himself. The plain ergy and voluntarily deposited a y, and hence, no cause of action e learned counsel further argued demand raised by the Board wa f penalty was imposed strictly d Circulars of the Board, and the s also submitted that the Courts no jurisdiction to entertain su detection of theft of energy by upon the judgment of this Cour ar versus Sub-Divisional Off

at the Courts below have failed B, along with other officials, h respondent on 31.5.1989, and fou ered with, which clearly constitu Rules, Instructions and Commer er Courts have erred in holding t tampering of seals. It is argued t the readings, and not to check Flying Squad, during a surpr meter was checked in the prese ntiff had thereafter admitted a sum of ₹13,920/- with the Bo n arose in his favour for filing that the findings of both the Cou as illegal are wholly unsustainab y in accordance with the Ru e same was lawfully recovered fr s below failed to appreciate that uch disputes arising out of acts the Electricity Board. The learn rt in RSA No. 4181 of 2016, tit fficer and another, decided

- d to had und uted cial that that rise nce oard urts ble. ules, rom s of ned tled

14.05.2025, wh Court that the j Electricity Act, for unauthorized

21.

Hen liable to be set a Submissions of

22.

Lea supported the ju that the findings do not call for Appeal. It is co appellants were and both the C appellants was i

23.

It i counsel for the another (RSA N of the present c Court under Sec relates to an all prior to the com

24.

It i Electricity Act, under those ena herein it has been specifically h jurisdiction of the civil Court i 2003 in matters relating to ass d use or theft of electricity. nce, it is submitted that the find aside and the suit of the plaintiff f learned counsel for the respon arned counsel for the responden udgments and decrees passed by s recorded therein are based on p r any interference by this Cou ontended that the allegations o never proved either through cog Courts below have rightly held illegal, arbitrary and without juri is further submitted that the jud appellants, i.e. Mahesh Kumar No. 4181 of 2016), has no applic case. The said case pertains to ction 145 of the Electricity Act, eged act of theft of energy that ming into force of the Electricity A is argued that during the relev 1910 and the Electricity (Suppl actments, no provision existed b

held by the Division Bench of t s barred under Section 145 of sessment and imposition of pena dings of both the Courts below deserves to be dismissed. ndent nt/plaintiff, on the other hand, y both the Courts below and argu proper appreciation of evidence urt in the present Regular Seco of theft of energy levelled by gent documentary or oral eviden d that the demand raised by isdiction. dgment relied upon by the learn versus Sub-Divisional Officer a ation to the facts and circumstan the bar of jurisdiction of the c , 2003, whereas the present disp took place in the year 1989, mu Act, 2003. vant period, the provisions of ly) Act, 1948 were applicable, barring the jurisdiction of the c

- this alty are has ued and ond nce, ned and nces civil pute uch and

Court. Consequ adjudicate upon

25.

lower appellate was defective, t there was no ev concurrent findi call for no interf Findings of this

26.

I h Counsels for the

27.

On disturb the conc and the lower ap and concluded t on the record. defective meter showed an errat premises month consult the con drawing the inf regular consump contemporaneou the Flying Squa deliberate pilfer uently, the civil Court was f n the dispute. e learned counsel further submi Court have, on the basis of ev that the Flying Squad did not vidence to prove any dishonest ings of fact recorded by the Co ference by this Court. s Court have carefully considered the e parties and gone through the re n the question of theft of electri current findings recorded by the ppellate court carefully consider hat the allegation of dishonest ab The trial court accepted that t and had moved Ex. P-2 for its c tic pattern of operation and tha hly never reported any tampering cerned SDO/JE or follow an ad ference of theft. The appellate c ption pattern (about 1,200–1,700 us report of seal-tampering by t ad to take procedural steps wh rage had been found. In that fac

fully competent to entertain its that both the trial Court and vidence, rightly held that the me follow proper procedure, and t t abstraction of energy. Hence, ourts below are well-reasoned respective contentions of the ecords. icity, this Court finds no reason e courts below. Both the trial co ed the pleadings and oral testimo bstraction of energy was not prov the plaintiff had complained o checking and change and the me at the meter-reader who visited g and that the Flying Squad did dequate checking procedure bef court similarly noted the plainti 0 units monthly), the absence of the meter-reader, and the failure hich would have been expected ctual background the Courts bel

- and eter that and Ld. n to ourt ony ved of a eter not fore ff's any e of d if

rightly held that years' accounts plaintiff ought t courts below, th established on th

28.

Bef governed by th 1948, together Electricity Boar the jurisdiction jurisdiction had Section 9 of th jurisdiction to tr impliedly barred 120), the Hon'b noted that altho jurisdiction can departmental sc grievances. The statutory instruc 1980), Circular 1989), which c assessments, in Executive Engi t the demand by way of penalty was illegal, arbitrary and void o be adjusted. Having reviewed his Court concurs with those find he evidence. fore the enactment of the Ele he Indian Electricity Act, 1910 with administrative circulars an rds. Neither of those Acts conta of the civil courts. Consequen d to be determined by applying he Code of Civil Procedure, 1 ry all suits of a civil nature unle d by statute. However, in PSEB ble Supreme Court analysed th ough Section 9 CPC confers wid n be excluded by necessary imp cheme provides an effective sta e Court observed that the Electr ctions and circulars for example, No. 111/84 (5 December 1984) created a structured internal ma ncluding committees comprisin ineer, Chief Accounts Officer,

y raised after an overhaul of th , and that the deposit made by the record and the reasoning of dings the case for theft has not b ectricity Act, 2003, the field w and the Electricity (Supply) A nd instructions issued by the St ained any express provision barr ntly, the question of exclusion the general principle contained 1908, i.e. that the civil court ess such jurisdiction is expressly B v. Ashwani Kumar (1997 (5) S his very issue in depth. The Co de jurisdiction on civil courts, t plication if the relevant statute atutory mechanism for redressal ricity Board had issued a series Circular No. 111/80 (20 Decem ) and Circular No. 26/89 (7 Aug achinery for review and appeal ng the Superintending Engin and other officers empowered

- hree f the een was Act, tate ring n of d in has y or SCC ourt that e or l of s of mber gust l of eer,

consider and overhauling of a

29.

or review forum provided under seeking declara resolved by that formed part of and hence, by n to that extent. H in all electricity limited situation fundamental pro civil right not co

30.

Thu general jurisdic necessary impli effective appell penalties, or the authorities first or lack of statuto

31.

Thi into force. The bar under Sectio relating to asses decide consumer objections accounts. e Supreme Court held that wher m exists, the consumer must firs those circulars. The civil court s ation or injunction in matters t statutory mechanism. The ratio the statutory framework under t necessary implication, the civil-However, the Court did not lay do y matters. It clarified that civil-c ns particularly where the depart ocedural fairness, or where the overed by the Board's statutory p us, in Ashwani Kumar's case (s tion under Section 9 CPC but ication in cases where the Elec late/review procedures for griev eft-related demands. The consum and only in exceptional cases in ory remedy could the civil Court is position continued to apply u 2003 Act then replaced the earl on 145, clearly ousting civil-cou ssment, disconnection, and theft o

regarding theft assessments re such an administrative appel st exhaust the departmental reme should not ordinarily entertain a that could have been effectiv onale was that the Board's circu the Electricity (Supply) Act, 19 -court's jurisdiction stood exclud own a blanket bar against civil su court jurisdiction would survive tmental machinery failed to foll e dispute involved an independ procedure. (supra), the Civil Court retained that jurisdiction was excluded ctricity Board had already fram vances arising out of assessme mer was required to approach th nvolving violation of natural just t intervene. until the Electricity Act, 2003 ca lier regime and inserted an expr urt jurisdiction in specified matt of energy.

- and late edy suit vely lars 948, ded uits e in low dent d its by med nts, hose tice ame ress

32.

Ap finds that the al 1989, when the by the appellan judicial or quas both the courts the competent o provide the pla procedural illeg the jurisdiction o

33.

In Kumar's case ( The Supreme C fairness of proc themselves are declaratory relie

34.

Fur upon in Ashwa and the earliest dealt with the p court jurisdictio deprive a citize express bar — w civil court right plying the said principle to the f leged act of theft and the impug 2003 Act was not in force. The nts were only administrative in si-judicial mechanism comparab below have found that the Flyi officers, failed to observe the aintiff an opportunity of heari gality and breach of fairness, br of the civil court. such circumstances, even und (supra), the exclusion of civil-co ourt in that judgment itself recog cedure has been violated", or w not followed, the consumer m ef. rthermore, it is significant that ni Kumar's case (supra) were of them (Circular No. 111/84 procedure for internal review an on. The existence of such inte en of access to a civil court, un which, as of 1989, did not exist. ly exercised jurisdiction to enter

facts of the present case, this Co gned demand arose out of events e departmental circulars relied up nstructions and did not provid ble to a statutory forum. Moreov ng Squad acted without consult prescribed procedure, and did ing. These are clear instances ringing the dispute squarely wit der the law declared in Ashw ourt jurisdiction cannot be inferr gnized that where "the fundamen where the departmental instructi may approach the civil court t the departmental circulars rel intended to operate prospective and Circular No. 26/89) prima nd recovery, not with ousting ci ernal remedy cannot automatica nless the statute itself provides Therefore, this Court holds that rtain and decide the plaintiff's s

- ourt s in pon de a ver, ting not of thin wani red. ntal ions for lied ely, arily vil-ally s an

The later decisio of the Electricit statutory bar. T invoked to nul

35.

Acc court was barred Conclusion

36.

In l below have retu on record. The demand raised b was fully comp relevant time.

37.

Acc judgments and hereby affirmed

38.

Pen

October 27, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh on in Mahesh Kumar's case (su ty Act, 2003, is wholly inappli The said provision has no retro llify proceedings that arose un cordingly, the plea of the appella d is rejected. light of the above discussion, th urned well-reasoned and concurr allegation of theft of electric by the appellants was illegal and petent to entertain the suit in v cordingly, the present Regular decrees of the courts below dat d. nding application(s), if any, also

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

upra), which interprets Section icable as it deals with a post-20 ospective operation and cannot nder the earlier statutory regim ants that the jurisdiction of the c his Court finds that both the cou rent findings based on the evide city has not been proved, and d without authority. The civil co view of the law prevailing at Second Appeal is dismissed. T ted 26.10.1990 and 06.05.1993 stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- t be me. civil urts nce ourt