Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Jai Singh Rana vs Tpddl & Anr on 2 September, 2015

             IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, SENIOR
                CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER
                   NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.

Suit No. :    269/15

In the matter of :
Jai Singh Rana                                                      ......Plaintiff
                                    Versus
TPDDL & Anr.                                                    ......Defendant
02.09.2015
Order :
1.

Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC preferred by the plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

i. Plaintiff claims that he is owner/bhumidar of the agricultural land situated in Khasra No. 860 of the village Siraspur,Delhi. The said agricultural land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and he has become the owner of the said land by way of inheritance.

ii. An electricity connection has been provided by the defendants bearing K No. 60006406288 which is in operation since the year 1966 under the category of Agriculture. Regularly bills were raised and duly paid by the plaintiff.

iii. Plaintiff is dependent on this agricultural land for his livelihood and growing crops and plants of different kinds. The activities performed by the plaintiff in his land are defined as 'agriculture' under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Plaintiff further states that he is growing plants in his land using various techniques like seeds, cross-hybrid , cutting and mutation etc. For the said purpose he had employed 2-3 labourers and also provided Suit No.269/15 Page 1 of 5 them accommodation in the said agriculture land itself and constructed two rooms and public convenience for their inhabitation. iv. In the month of November, 2013 an inspection was carried out by the Enforcement Team of the defendant ostensibly to capture the theft, however, they could not find any theft in respect of the aforesaid connection. As a vendetta and to satisfy their ego they mentioned in the noting that the connection was being used for domestic purposes instead for agricultural purposes.

v. Thereafter, a bill was raised in the category of NDLT for an amount of Rs.3,97,350/-. Plaintiff approached the defendants informing his stand that he was only growing the plants and as to how he can be charged for NDLT category. However, the defendant did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking declaration that the activities carried out by the plaintiff falls with the purview of Agriculture coupled with a decree of injunction directing defendants not to disconnect electricity supply.

2. Written statement was filed by the defendant.

i. Preliminary objections were taken. It was stated that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was further stated that an inspection was carried out by the enforcement department of defendant company on 25.11.2013 against CA No. 60006406288 and at that time plaintiff was present at the site of inspection but refused to sign the copy of inspection report bearing No. 231439 and show cause notice bearing No. 174050 was also prepared at the site. Irregularities were observed. Same are as under:-

" The agricultural sanctioned meter is used for commercial purpose i.e. for running a nursery(Pratap Nursery)"

ii. Due to aforementioned irregularities a case of unauthorised use of Electricity (UUE)/Misuse of Electricity u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 was booked against the plaintiff. Furthermore, plaintiff ought to have paid the court fees as per judgements passed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Sarjeevan Singh Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board reported in 110(2004) DLT

633. Lastly plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit as the plaintiff is neither registered consumer nor there is any privity of contract with the plaintiff as he had not applied for change of name/incorporation of his name in the meter. As per record, one Pratap Singh Rana was the registered consumer.

iii. On merits the aforesaid contents were reiterated. It was contended that agriculture connection was found to be used for non- domestic purposes i.e. running a nursery. Rest of the plaint averments were denied in toto. Dismissal of the suit was sought for.

3. Now on 27.05.2015 I had passed an interim order directing the plaintiff to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- in two installments. First installment of Rs.75,000/- was to be paid on 04.06.2015 and remaining Rs.75,000/- was to be deposited on 25.06.2015. It has been informed that the said amount has been deposited.

4. Heard either side.

5. The parameters governing the discretion at the stage of disposal of interim application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC are well- settled and it depends purely of there being (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and (iii) on the facet of irreparable loss and injury. These principles only needs to be taken into consideration.

6. Coming on the aspect of prima-facie case as to whether the activity which is being carried out by the plaintiff i.e. a nursery falls within the domain of an agricultural or not. It is urged by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff that the activity of nursery - of growing plants is an agricultural activity, like normal agriculture wherein the farm produced is sold, in nursery it is the plants/flowers which are sold. The process of farming/nurturing is the same.

Per contra, it is stated by the defendant side that this is not an agricultural activity but is a commercial activity which is being carried out by the defendant.

7. Now in my opinion, at this juncture it cannot be conclusively said that the activity carried out by the plaintiff is not related to agriculture/not having any nexus with agriculture or the process of growing crops. The further fact that the land is used for either of the purposes i.e. for growing crops as well as for raising the plants to maximize the out put of land also cannot be lost sight and is a relevant fact. Defendant has also not substantiated their version as to the fact that nursery does not fall within the purview of agricultural activity or liable to be charged a differential tariff either on the basis of any DERC clarification or notification in this regard, as such in my opinion, these are triable issues/points which shall be adjudicated after evidence is led.

The ouster of jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of Section 145 of the Electricity Act is also dependent upon the construction/adjudication as to the fact whether the activity carried out by the plaintiff is an agriculture activity or not. The assessment order which has been passed also does not specify anything on this aspect. Plaintiff thus, has a prima-facie case in his favour.

Plaintiff has also complied with the interim directions passed Suit No.269/15 Page 4 of 5 and nearly 40% of the impugned bill amount has been deposited. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff in as much as the electricity connection is not provided/permitted to be removed irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated on monetary terms.

8. Thus, plaintiff is entitled for interim relief and the interim application is disposed off with the directions that the defendant is restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply vide K No. 60006406288. The deposit made by the plaintiff i.e. a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be adjusted or refunded subject to the outcome of the case with reasonable interest. Application is disposed off accordingly.

9. Pleadings are complete. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues settled :-

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration, as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunctions, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action?OPD

4. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction?OPP

5. Relief.

No other issue arises or is pressed for. Advance copy of the affidavit be supplied to the opposite party 7 days prior to the next date of hearing. List of witnesses be filed on or before the next date of hearing. Put up for entire PE on 16.09.2015.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT                            (SUMIT DASS)
DT. : 02.09.2015                                   SCJ-Cum-RC (N),
                                                   ROHINI/DELHI.

Suit No.269/15                                                    Page 5 of 5
 Suit No.269/15   Page 6 of 5
 Suit No. :   269/15

02.09.2015
Present      : Ld. counsel for parties
             AR of the defendant.
             Arguments heard.

Some documents filed by the defendant side. Copy given. Be awaited for orders at 4 p.m. (SUMIT DASS) SCJ-Cum-RC (N), Rohini, Delhi.

At 4 p.m.

Present      : None

Vide separate order, interim application is disposed off. Issues are framed.

Put up entire PE on 16.09.2015.

(SUMIT DASS) SCJ-Cum-RC (N), ROHINI/DELHI.