PSEB told to check ‘uncalled for’ litigation
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 2
“Penny-wise pound-foolish” Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) is in for a shock. Deprecating its habit of filing frivolous appeals, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today called for the setting up of a mechanism to check “uncalled for” litigation and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 of the board.

Justice Ranjit Singh also asked the board to consider the feasibility of examining the amount spent on contesting claim for not so hefty amount, that also after years of delay.

In an order full of electrifying observations, Justice Ranjit Singh asserted: “As one is generally aware from frequent newspaper reports, the board is not in good health financially. Still, this is no deterrent for the board to avoid frivolous litigation. The board has experts to advice if the case is fit one to file an appeal. Still the appeals are being filed in cases where it would show them to be penny-wise pound-foolish.”

“The board must have a mechanism to check this uncalled for litigation…. It may wish to check how much it has spent to contest the claim for recovery of approximately Rs 1 lakh”.

The assertion came on an appeal filed by the board against Jagjit Singh and others. The board’s central zone chief engineer had directed the recovery of Rs 1,31,000 from Jagjit Singh. He was transferred from the division where the shortage was alleged to have taken place on August 14, 1991. The show cause notice was issued on May 15, 1997, for the recovery of the amount. Subsequently, the impugned order directing the recovery was passed on June 2, 1999.

Justice Ranjit Singh asserted: “I have perused the instructions dated July 12, 1997. They clearly mention that the official concerned is required to be informed about the shortage as expeditiously as possible; and within a period of three months, which is extendable to six months.”

“It cannot be said these instructions introduced in 1997 would not apply to the existing or pending cases, which were yet to be finalised when these instructions were issued.

“It is well settled principle of law that with the passage of time, person may not have in his possession any material to show his innocence…. The authorities cannot be permitted to wake up after lapse of eight years to direct recovery…. There is no substantial question of law arising in the case, which would require adjudication. The board is rather well-advised not to file uncalled for litigation”.