Judicial officer adopted 'very casual approach' in power theft case: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, December 20

In an out-of-the-ordinary judgment on the functioning of the lower court judges, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that a judicial officer deviated from the main controversy and adopted a “very casual approach” in a case alleging electricity theft. The Bench also made it clear that another judicial officer lacked clarity of vision in the matter.

Not in right perspective

The order passed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal, was without any attempt to consider the matter in a proper perspective after trying to understand the factual and legal position properly. Justice HS Madaan, Punjab & Haryana HC

Justice HS Madaan also rapped the petitioner before the court for playing over smart, adding that granting discretionary equitable relief to a litigant indulging in unfair practice of concealing material facts, adopting dubious means, and otherwise shoddy conduct, was “most uncalled for” and would rather result in the failure of justice.

The case has its genesis in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for restraining Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and another defendant from disconnecting the electricity connection to land in Kaithal district.

After hearing arguments, Kaithal Civil Judge junior division, vide order dated February 8, 2018, directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the connection till the suit’s disposal. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, acting on which Kaithal Additional District Judge modified the earlier order to the extent of restraining the defendants from recovering whole of penalty till the matter’s final disposal.

Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff approached the high court by filing the revision. Taking up the matter, Justice Madaan asserted that the trial court disposed of the application, directing the parties to maintain status quo without due application of mind and keeping in view the relevant legal position. Such an order went on to show that the trial court lacked clarity of vision was unable to reach a clear conclusion under the circumstances of the case. The trial court noticed all the things, but conveniently opted not to take those into consideration and found a convenient way out. It was a vague type of an order having grave consequences, many a time giving rise to quarrels and fights between the parties.

Kaithal Additional District Judge’s order also came out to be a result of a very casual approach, without an attempt to consider the matter in a proper perspective after trying to understand the factual and legal position properly.