- (1.) I propose to dispose of these revision petitions by this composite order inasmuch as the points arising for adjudication are identical.
(2.) The non-petitioners are agriculturists. Each non-petitioner-plaintiff obtained an electric connection from the petitioner-defendant for his tube-well for running electricity motor of 30 hp. The defendant used to issue bills to the plaintiffs for the aforesaid sanctioned load in the past and which was also paid by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. According to the agreement entered into between the R.S.E.B. and the consumer, the consumer could not take more load for running of his motor than what has been sanctioned. In order to ensure the above condition, the petitioner-defendant effected checking from time to time by deputing its Vigilance Staff. The above Vigilance Staff checked the meters of the plaintiff with the help of modern electronic instrument. The instrument is absolutely accurate in judging the load of the motor of the plaintiff. On 27-11-1996 the defendant-petitioner checked the motor pump of the various consumers including the non-petitioner-plaintiff and it was found that the non-petitioner-plaintiff was taking load in excess of the sanctioned load. The checking report was prepared on the spot in presence of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and on the basis of the above checking report, for violation of the agreement, a demand was created for payment of excess load used by the plaintiff @ Rs. 1250/- per horse power and 25% of the above calculated amount + Rs. 100/- per horse power as penalty for unauthorised use of excess load as provided in the order No. 198 dated 2-8-1996 of the Board. A demand was accordingly raised and sent to the non-petitioner-plaintiff for payment. The plaintiff-non-petitioner, on receiving the demand note of the excess load taken by him, challenged the same by filing civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jaitaran in which the correctness of the Vigilance Report and the demand raised on that basis were assailed. Along with the suit, the non-petitioner-plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. in which it was prayed that the defendant-petitioner be restrained from disconnecting the electric supply of the plaintiff on account of non-payment of the demand raised by the Board. The said application was stoutly opposed by the defendant-petitioner on various grounds and the trial Court, after hearing both the parties, rejected the application of the plaintiff-non-petitioner for the grant of temporary injunction vide order dated 4-2-1997. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed an appeal against the above order which was allowed by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 24-7-1997. As a result of the above order, the petitioner-defendant has been restrained from releasing the demand raised by them on the basis of checking made by the Vigilance Department and also from disconnecting the connection of the plaintiff for non-payment of the above demand.
(3.) I have heard Shri R. K. Singhal appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Shri A. K. Rajvanshy was also heard who appeared on behalf of some of the non-petitioners-plaintiffs. All the non-petitioners were served with a show cause notice in pursuance of the order dated 20-11-1997.;