SURAT SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiffs second appeal. He succeeded in the first court in a suit for malicious prosecution which was decreed for Rs. 500.00 in his favour but the first appellate court reversed that judgment.

(2.) Surat Singh, the appellant, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 500.00 against four respondents. The suit was brought on 11-5-1970. Defendant No. 3 was the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He is not being proceeded against and is not a respondent before me. There are, therefore, three respondents who were originally defendants Nos. 1,2 and 4. As the title would show defendant No. 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a body corporate constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Defendant No. 2, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (for short 'the DESU') is one of the undertakings of the first defendant under the aforesaid Act. One of the purposes of the DESU is to provide electricity to various persons. Under Section 277 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, Delhi Municipal Corporation have all the powers and obligations for a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short 'the Electricity Act') in respect of whole of the Union Territory of Delhi and Chapter-XIII of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act relating to electricity and supply shall be deemed to be the licence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for the purpose of the Electricity Act. Defendant No. 4 P.C Gupta at the relevant time was working as Assistant Engineer (Construction and Augmentation) in the office of defendant No. 2.

(3.) One Chander Bhan resident of village Mangeshpur was sanctioned electric connection for his tubewell by DESU, service line of which was proposed to be installed through the fields of Surat Singh, the plaintiff and his brother Mansa Ram. On 2-2-1969 Mansa Ram wrote a letter (Ex. P-3) to the Zonal Superintendent, DESU, slating therein that he had come to know that the electric lines to the tubewell of Chander Bhan were being laid through his fields and that installation of electric poles and wires would cause considerable damage to his fields. He suggested that overhead line could be laid through another route. He said he bad objection to the line being laid through his fields and if the line was laid through different route he was prepared to bear all the expenses incurred for that purpose. On 17-2-69 Mansa Ram wrote yet another letter (Ex. P-4) to the Executive Engineer, DESU to same effect. He said service line which was being laid was so designed that the poles to be planted will unnecessarily block a part of his land thereby causing nuisance to him to plough his fields smoothly. It was pointed out that the inspector of DESU who had visited the fields of Mansa Ram had got installed three poles from the proposed tubewell site upto the fields of one Ishwar Singh, pradhan of the village. Mansa Ram wrote that he objected to the installation of pole in his fields and suggested the inspector to change the route of service line. Mansa Ram also wrote that he handed over a letter to that effect to the inspector at the site and he said he under took to pay any additional amount, if involved, in changing the route. In this letter Mansa Ram also gave the proposed alternative route. Defendant P.C. Gupta was the Zonal Superintendent at that time to whom letter Ex. P-3 was addressed. At this stage reference may be made to the statement of defendant-P.C. Gupta appearing as DW-1, the sole witness for the defendant. He said that for giving electric supply he was to adopt the shortest route. For supply of electricity to the tubewell of Chander Bhan seven poles were to be installed. While, three poles bad been installed remaining two/three poles. 338 were to be installed on the fields of the plaintiff. He said Mansa Ram brother of Surat Singh, the plaintiff, had come to him and objected that the poles should not be fixed on the land of the plaintiff and that those be fixed at any other alternative route. He said this proposal was not agreed to. He said for the first time it was on 4th or 5th March, 1969 that he had gone to the spot to fix the remaining poles and the plaintiff resisted. He said he informed his Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer and they asked him to take police aid. According to P.C. Gupta he went to the spot on 7-3-1969 along with the police to fix the poles. He said when he started fixing the first pole on the land of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and two ladies resisted and at that time the police took the plaintiff into custody. The two ladies were not touched as there was no lady police available there at that time. Mr. Gupta said that whatever he did was a part of his duty and under the instructions of his superior officers. Then he stated that he had no malice against the plaintiff and due to detention the plaintiff did not suffer any damage nor was he defamed. Lastly, he stated that it was not necessary to get the consent of the plaintiff before fixing the electric poles in his land.