Krishnakumar Raymallu Komu And Another v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Chandrapur Through Its Dy. Executive Engine

sa315.19.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

SECOND APPEAL NO.315/2019 Krishnakumar Raymallu Komu and anr. .vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd thr. its Dy. Executive Engiener, Chandapur _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. M. Anilkumar, Advocate for appellants.

CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : JULY 9, 2019 Heard Mr. M. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the appellants.

Admittedly, the premises of appellant; Hotel Ashoka Bar and Restaurant, was checked by respondent authorities since they were apprehending that there is a theft of electricity. On search being taken, in accordance with law, it was found that the appellant has committed theft of electricity over Rs.1,62,750/-. The appellant, thereafter, opted to exercise his right before the authorities by filing an objection and carried an appeal. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by the competent authority on 01.06.2004. The said was not challenged any further. In 2004 thereafter a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that notice dated 03.06.2003 demanding Rs.1,62,750/- and notice dated 15.07.2004 demanding Rs.1,48,475/- are unlawful and defendant-present

sa315.19.odt respondent was directed to pay Rs.80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 16.07.2004. The said judgment was carried by defendant in appeal. The learned Principal District Judge, vide judgment dated 07.01.2019, found that the suit itself was not maintainable and thereby allowed the appeal.

Admittedly, the appellants meter was found running very slow and the theft of electricity was writ large. The electricity company was, therefore, incurred losses and therefore notices were issued.

The appellant, thereafter, exercised his option of challenge and chose to file an objection as well as appeal, which was rejected by the competent authority. The said were not challenged and thereafter the suit was filed. The learned Principal District Judge has found that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the suit was not maintainable.

I do not see any reason to take any other view of the matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

JUDGE kahale