IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2280-1997 (O&M) Punjab State Electricity Board and Another . . . . Appellants Vs. Harbans Lal . . . . Respondent **** Reserved on: 16.09.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The defendants are in appeal against the judgment of the learned Addi(onal District Judge, Ludhiana dated 12.04.1997, whereby the appeal of the plain(ff–Harbans Lal (respondent herein) was accepted and his suit for mandatory injunc(on decreed. The trial Court had earlier dismissed the suit on 30.08.1996. 2. The plain(ff was a consumer of electricity supplied by the defendants. He alleged that he had been paying charges regularly and had never commi8ed the9 of energy. On 18.10.1993, the flying squad of the defendants visited his premises, disconnected supply, and removed the meter. According to him, the seals were intact and had never been tampered with. Nevertheless, a memo dated 19.10.1993 was issued requiring him to deposit ₹57,021/- for restora(on of supply. The plain(ff assailed the memo as illegal, contending that NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2280-1997 (O&M) no no(ce had been issued to him prior to disconnec(on and that no the9 of energy was ever commi8ed. 3. The defendants, in contes(ng the suit, claimed that on inspec(on, the flying squad headed by the Assistant Chief Engineer found the M.E. seals tampered with, enabling manipula(on of consump(on. The meter was removed, his account overhauled as per the Board’s instruc(ons, and demand of ₹57,021/- was rightly raised for re-connec(on. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit. 5. However, in appeal, the learned Addi(onal District Judge reversed the findings. The appellate Court scru(nized the evidence of Shri Harbans Singh, Execu(ve Engineer (DW-1), who had conducted the checking. Though he stated that all four M.E. seals were tampered with, significant infirmi(es in his tes(mony were no(ced: • He admi8ed in cross-examina(on that M.E. seals are affixed by the M.E. Laboratory, which retains the original seal impressions. Yet, he did not send the meter to the Laboratory for comparison. • His report (Ex.D-2) was silent about any comparison of seals with the original impressions, and no explana(on was given for omission of such a vital step. His subsequent statement that comparison was made at the spot was disbelieved as an a9erthought to cover up this lapse. • The report did not specify how the seals were tampered with. In cross-examina(on, he admi8ed that seals were original, only sta(ng that they were tampered from the lash wire. Even this was not supported by his report. The lash wire was not sent for verifica(on to the Laboratory. Page 2 of 3 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2280-1997 (O&M) • The meter was not opened to check whether the digits had been reversed or altered. No scratches or other signs of interference were found. Importantly, DW-1 admi8ed that no actual the9 of energy was detected at the (me of inspec(on. 6. With above findings, the appellate Court concluded that the charge of tampering was not established in accordance with law. Mere asser(on of tampering without corrobora(on from the M.E. Laboratory or clear evidence could not form the basis of a penal demand. The disconnec(on and demand of ₹57,021/- were held to be illegal. 7. In this Regular Second Appeal before this court, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any legal infirmity or factual error in the well- reasoned findings of the first Appellate Court. Once the allega(on of tampering failed for want of reliable proof, the consequen(al demand and disconnec(on could not be sustained. 8. As such, no ground for interference is made out. The appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 18.09.2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document