Harbeer Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer Uhbvnl Jind & ANR

RSA No.3899 of 2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3899 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.08.11.2016 Harbeer Singh .......Appellant Vs Sub-Divisional Officer and another ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) C.M. No.10100-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 33 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

RSA No.3899 of 2016 The appellant-plaintiff challenged the checking report dated 04.08.2011 and subsequent assessment of penalty amount Rs.18,981/- and Rs.8,000/- on account of compounding fee assessed by the defendants on 4.8.2011 and further restraining the defendants from disconnection the power supply. The trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff but the lower Appellate Court reversed the finding rendered by the trial Court, hence the regular second appeal.

Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the procedure under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not followed and therefore, alleged action taken by the respondentCorporation was wrong. Despite availability of the alternative remedy, suit for injunction can be filed.

PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.11.16 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.3899 of 2016 (O&M) -2During the course of arguments, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that instead of arguing on merits of the case, he may be granted liberty to avail the remedy as per the provisions of the 2003 Act. I am in full agreement with the aforementioned request of Mr. Sharma and would deem it appropriate that in case any application challenging the aforementioned demand is filed within a period of one month from today, accompanied by an application seeking for condonation of delay by taking the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the competent authority shall decide the application by taking into consideration the bona fides of the appellant.

In view of the aforementioned observations, the second appeal is disposed of with the liberty granted above as the Civil Court was not having jurisdiction to try and entertain the relief sought in the suit. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 08, 2016 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.11.16 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document