Present:- Mr. A.K.Kalsy Advocate Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1065800
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-01-2013
AppellantPresent:- Mr. A.K.Kalsy Advocate
RespondentPunjab State Electricity Board and Another
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh rs.no.2556 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:01.07.2013 anil jain ....appellant versus punjab state electricity board and another ....respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rakesh kumar garg 1 whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.”2. to be referred to reporters or not?.”3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present:- mr.a.k.kalsy, advocate for the appellant. rakesh kumar garg, j (oral) this is appellant's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees dated 10.1.2011 and 13.1.2013, whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount of ` 1,91,091/- raised vide memo no.8717 dated 15.12.2006 against electricity connection account not me01/0033-s was dismissed. while dismissing the suit as well as appeal, the courts below have observed that the appellant has sought permanent injunction against the respondent-authority which is recovering the amount in question on the basis of the statutory rules without challenging the said recovery memo by seeking declaration for quashing of the same. rs.no.2556 of 2013 (o&m) -2- counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that alleged recovery is being made on the basis of the rules, which are not applicable in the instant case. thus, questions of law as raised in ground no.9 of the grounds of appeal arises in this appeal. admittedly, the recovery memo was issued to the appellant under the statutory rules. no declaration has been sought by the appellant to quash the aforesaid recovery memo. in view of the aforesaid factum alone the argument raised by the appellant is liable to be rejected as no injunction can be issued against the authority which is making the recovery under the statutory rules. in view of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law, as raised in the grounds of appeal and as argued, does arise in this appeal. dismissed. july 01, 2013 (rakesh kumar garg) savita judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.2556 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:01.07.2013 Anil Jain ....Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.”

2. To be referred to reporters or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present:- Mr.A.K.Kalsy, Advocate for the appellant.

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is appellant's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees dated 10.1.2011 and 13.1.2013, whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount of ` 1,91,091/- raised vide memo No.8717 dated 15.12.2006 against electricity connection account not ME01/0033-S was dismissed.

While dismissing the suit as well as appeal, the courts below have observed that the appellant has sought permanent injunction against the respondent-authority which is recovering the amount in question on the basis of the statutory rules without challenging the said recovery memo by seeking declaration for quashing of the same.

Rs.No.2556 of 2013 (O&M) -2- Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that alleged recovery is being made on the basis of the rules, which are not applicable in the instant case.

Thus, questions of law as raised in Ground No.9 of the grounds of appeal arises in this appeal.

Admittedly, the recovery memo was issued to the appellant under the statutory rules.

No declaration has been sought by the appellant to quash the aforesaid recovery memo.

In view of the aforesaid factum alone the argument raised by the appellant is liable to be rejected as no injunction can be issued against the authority which is making the recovery under the statutory rules.

In view of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law, as raised in the grounds of appeal and as argued, does arise in this appeal.

Dismissed.

July 01, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE