Delhi District Court
Sh. Bal Kishan vs North Delhi Power Limited on 25 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHI AGGARWAL
CIVIL JUDGE, (CENTRAL-02), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Unique ID No. 02401C0027892004
Suit No. 370/2006
SH. BAL KISHAN
S/O SH. SUNDER LAL,
R/O 315/8/A, SHAHZADA BAGH,
NEW DELHI. .....PLAINTIFF
Versus
NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED
THROUGH ITS C.E.O.,
HUDSON LINES, KINGSWAY CAMP,
DELHI-110009. .....DEFENDANT
Date of Institution: 23.02.2004
Date of Reserving for Judgment: 19.07.2012
Date of Judgment: 25.07.2012
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
Plaintiff's version:-
2 It is the case of the plaintiff that he is carrying out the business at premises no. 315/8/A, Shahzada Bagh, New Delhi. He had obtained an electricity connection having K No. 3530044673 B installed at the above mentioned premises Suit No. 370/2006 Page 1 of 9 having sanctioned load of 30.96 kws. The plaintiff has been regularly paying the bills.
3 A revised policy/procedure for grant of permanent/provisional electric connection on demand was circulated vide office order no. CO-II/P-8/99/6 dated 15.02.1999 in view of the approval of DVB vide Resolution no. 06-99/056A, on receipt of Letter no. F-11(10) 95-EB/15815 dated 04.02.1999 from the NCT of Delhi. On the basis of this policy declared by the Board, the plaintiff applied for industrial connection. As per the policy, the plaintiff was entitled to the industrial connection without having municipal licence and for this purpose, higher charges were required to be deposited and the same were deposited by the plaintiff. As per the policy, the plaintiff was liable to pay the bills on regular tariff and as such, the plaintiff was making the payment of the bills at the normal tariff in accordance with circular no. CE(C)/COI/P-25/2000/46 dated 20.07.2000 issued by Addl. Chief Engineer(Comml.) . The tariff schedule for the year 2001 to 2002 was issued by the DERC vide DERC reference no. F3(10)Tariff/2001-2002/177/ GNCTD-33 dated 24.05.2001 whereby, the rate for PI connection mentioned under the industry head was Rs. 4.10 P. only and accordingly, the defendant was raising the bills and the plaintiff was paying the same.Suit No. 370/2006 Page 2 of 9
4 The defendant issued a letter in which demand of Rs. 2,86,363.70 P. was raised against which the plaintiff filed a suit before the court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi.
During the pendency of this suit, the defendant revised the demand and a bill of Rs. 2,76,550/- was raised in which the current demand is Rs. 11,436.84 P. only and the rent demand of Rs. 1,84,749. 45 P. and Rs. 80,357.85 P. was revised under the head 99 and TR. However, the same is illegal and not payable by the plaintiff.
5 Furthermore, a regulation was passed by the DERC on 19.08.2002 and as per clause 31, the defendant can charge misuse penalty for a maximum period of 6 months from the date of current reading/inspection. As in this case, no inspection was carried out, misuse penalty cannot be imposed beyond the period of six months from the current bill.
6 No show cause notice was given and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the plaintiff which is against the principle of natural justice. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
Defendant's version:-
Suit No. 370/2006 Page 3 of 97 The defendant has stated in its written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 11 CPC as the same dispute has been withdrawn from the court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi and a revised bill for the period June, 2001 till March, 2003 was issued.
8 On merits, the defendant has denied all the allegations of the plaintiff and has stated that the Municipal Licence is mandatory in cases of industrial connection and as the defendant did not have an MCD Licence, he is required to pay the misuse charges. It is further stated that due opportunity was given to the plaintiff to appear and show if he possesses a valid municipal licence, but he failed to do so. Therefore, he is liable to make the payment in respect of the revised bill.
9 From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 10.04.2006, following issues were framed:-
1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
3 Relief.Suit No. 370/2006 Page 4 of 9
10 To prove its case, the plaintiff had examined himself as PW-1 who reiterated the facts as mentioned in his plaint. On the other hand, the defendant had examined Sh. Surender Khurana as DW-1 who reiterated the facts as mentioned in the written statement.
11 After conclusion of trial, final arguments were addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties.
12 I have carefully perused the record and given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties and my findings on various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP. 13 Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
PW-1 has deposed that according to a revised policy/procedure for grant of permanent/provisional electric connection on demand was circulated vide office order No. CO.II/P-8/99/6 dated 15.02.1999 in view of approval of DVB vide Resolution No. 06-99/056A on receipt of letter No. F-11(10) 95-EB/15815 dated 04.02.99 from the NCT of Delhi. He further deposed that Suit No. 370/2006 Page 5 of 9 according to this policy, he was entitled for the industrial connection without having municipal licence and for this purpose, higher charges were required to be deposited and were deposited by him. Copy of the receipt of Rs. 64,802/- is Ex. PW-1/2. He further deposed that as per the policy, he was required to pay the regular tariff and that he has been making the payments of the bills regularly and there is no outstanding dues pending against him. In his cross-examination, the PW-1 admitted that he does not have the MCD licence, although, he voluntarily says that the MCD licence was not required at the time of sanction of connection. He has further deposed in his cross-examination that industrial connection was never sanctioned to him.
14 On the other hand, DW-1 deposed that since the plaintiff was running an industry without having the MCD Licence, the N/F charges have been raised for the period w.e.f. 17.03.2001 to March, 2003.
15 Perusal of record reveals that the disputed bill mentions the supply type as PI/NF. It is clear that PI stands for Provisional Industrial Connection. The plaintiff has deposed that according to office orders, the plaintiff was entitled to the provisional industrial connection despite of not possessing the Suit No. 370/2006 Page 6 of 9 MCD Licence. He has also deposed that normal tariff was payable on the provisional industrial connection as per the tariff schedule for the year 2001-2002. However, the plaintiff has not proved on record the office orders or the tariff schedule on which, he is placing his reliance. Therefore, it is not established whether any such order provided that a provisional industrial connection can be granted to industries that do not possess the MCD licence or that normal tariff is payable even if he has provisional industrial connection. Moreover, the receipt which is Ex. PW-1/2 does not mention anywhere that it has been issued for payment of higher charges in respect of provisional industrial connection. Therefore, Ex. PW-1/2 also does not support the case of the plaintiff.
16 It was held in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. DVB 105 (2003) DLT 739 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the use of electrical load, for industrial purpose without valid MCD licence, shall be violative of the principle of schedule and condition of supply and shall be treated as misuse.
17 If electricity is being used for industrial purpose without possessing the MCD Licence, it is a violation and the misuse charges can be recovered at any time.
Suit No. 370/2006 Page 7 of 918 The plaintiff has further alleged that no show cause notice was issued before raising of the bill. However, DW-1 has placed on record a copy of the show cause notice which is Ex. DW-1/2. Therefore, the defendant has been able to prove that show cause notice was issued.
19 The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant can charge misuse penalty for a maximum period of six months from the date of reading/inspection. However, as per the Electricity Act, 2003, this argument also does not hold any good.
20 In view of the above discussion, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
21 In view of my finding on issue no. 1, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF 22 In view of my findings on the above issues, as Suit No. 370/2006 Page 8 of 9 discussed above, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief from this court. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Ruchi Aggarwal) on this 25th day of July, 2012. Civil Judge, Central-02 Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi.
Suit No. 370/2006 Page 9 of 9 CS. No. 370/2006 25.07.2012 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Ruchi Aggarwal) CJ/CENTRAL-02/DELHI/25.07.2012 Suit No. 370/2006 Page 10 of 9