Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Dhingra And Anr. vs M.P. Electricity Board on 31 August, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1990(0)MPLJ48
ORDER B.C. Varma, J.
1. One Shri C.S. Jasthey was running a shop styled as "K. Olympic Steel Furnitures" as a tenant in part of Harisingh Building bearing Nos. 644 and 645, Marhatal, Jabalpur. An electric meter was installed in those premises bearing No. 42-23-51-09-052649-9/052649 for supply of electricity. Shri C.S. Jasthey vacated those premises but did not pay the charges for consuming electricity for the month of October, 1988 and December, 1988 amounting to Rs. 1271.00. For this reason, the service connection has been disconnected by the respondent, viz., M.P. Electricity Board. The petitioners claim that on termination of the tenancy of Shri C.S. Jasthey, they entered into an agreement with the landlord on 28-5-1988 and became its tenants. They started the actual business from these premises from 1-4-1989. It is worth mentioning that the alleged agreement between the petitioners and the landlord on 28-5-1988 has not been filed. On 22-2-1989, the petitioners applied for electric connection and for installation of a meter for that purpose in their names. In response to this application by the petitioners, the respondent addressed a communication to the petitioners, vide Annexure P/1. By this, the dues outstanding against the earlier meter installed in those premises was required to be cleared by making payment of the amount due under that bill before the application for installation of another meter in petitioners' name could be considered. The petitioners then raised objection to the demand raised vide Annexure P/1. These objections are contained in Annexure P/2. Again, on 7-4-1989, vide Annexure P/5, the petitioners made a grievance to the Divisional Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur of the delay in the matter and in not installing the meter and in not commencing supply of the electricity. Petitioners have, therefore, claimed in this petition a direction to the respondent, the Electricity Board, to instal a meter in those premises and to commence supply of electricity through that meter. During the pendency of this petition, an interim writ was issued on 22-5-1989 whereby this Court directed that on payment by the petitioners of the entire dues towards electricity consumed within 7 days from the date of that order, the Board shall restore the electric supply within 15 days. It was noted in the order-sheet dated 8-6-1989 that the petitioners did not pay those dues and, therefore, the service connection could not be restored. On 28-6-1989, this Court directed the parties to file affidavits showing the date on which the petitioners actually occupied the premises. Those affidavits have not been filed. The counsel for the parties were then heard on merits of the case.
2. The moot question to be decided is whether the petitioners are entitled to the restoration of service connection either through the old meter or through another meter to be newly installed without payment of outstanding dues for the electricity consumed as indicated by the old meter in the same premises. Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act No. 9 of 1910) permits the licensee to cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supplyline or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him. Before, however, such supply is disconnected, a notice of not less than seven clear days in writing to such person is necessary. Such disconnection shall not deprive the licensee of his right to recover such charge by suit. Supply of electricity so discontinued may not be restored until such charge or other sum together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply are paid. The respondent Board, in the present case, found that certain amount on account of consumption of electricity through the meter installed in the premises in question remained unpaid. The supply was, therefore, discontinued. The amount has still not been paid. It is not the case of the petitioners that the amount is not due to the respondent Board for consumption of electricity. Therefore, so far as the electric supply through the old meter is concerned, the right of the Electricity Board to discontinue the supply is unquestionable. The supply of electricity, therefore, has rightly been discontinued. The amount still remains unpaid and, therefore, the supply cannot be restored. This disconnection has to continue until the amount so due is paid. From the averments made in para 3 of the petition, it appears as if the petitioners want restoration of the electric supply to them. They state therein "that the petitioners after entering into the agreement dated 28-5-1989 with the landlord............. have started the business from 1-4-1989 and previous to that the petitioners applied for the connection of the electricity to the respondent in a prescribed form dated 22-2-1989.........." This application is not sufficient to disclose as to what precisely the petitioners desired through that application. However, the aforesaid allegations indicate that the petitioners wanted "connection of the electricity" and this could not be done in view of provisions in Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act unless the outstanding dues are paid.
3. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Board, drew the attention of the Court to condition 22-A of the General Conditions for Supply of Electrical Energy and Scale of Miscellaneous and General Charges. This condition reads as follows:
"On the transfer of any premises, being made by the consumer, voluntarily or otherwise, which is supplied electricity, or on the said premises being allotted or acquired by any other person in any manner, the Board shall have the right to either discontinue the supply and not to recommence supply, as the case may be, unless all the dues outstanding in respect of supply at the said premises prior to such transfer, allotment or acquisition, are paid by any such transferee, allottee or acquiree."
The term of this condition for supply of electrical energy permits the Board to discontinue the supply or not to recommence the supply unless the dues outstanding in respect of supply at the said premises on transfer, allotment or acquisition are paid by transferee, allottee or acquiree. Petitioners have acquired these premises as tenant on the former tenant vacating the same. They have, therefore, rendered themselves liable to pay the outstanding dues for supply of electricity on those premises, and unless that is done, even according to this condition, the Board does have a right not to recommence the supply once discontinued. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to two circulars Annexures P/3 and P/4 attached with the petition and a decision of Kerala High Court in Souriyar Luka v. Kerala Electricity Board, AIR 1959 Kerala 199, for his submission that the amount remaining as arrears for supply of electric energy on certain premises cannot be recovered from the incoming or prospective consumer in respect of those premises. Annexure P/3 has a reference of some decision of the Kerala High Court that such amount could be recovered from the incoming and prospective consumer in respect of those premises. The circular Annexure P/4, which is dated 20th December, 1961, negatives the position contained in Annexure P/3. There, the reference appears to be to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Souriyar Luka's case (supra). After referring to the terms of Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, and in view of the provisions contained in that section, it has been held that the purchaser of the premises in revenue sale held for the purposes of recovering dues from a defaulting consumer is not a person from whom any amount is or can be deemed to be due and he is not in the position of one on whom premises have devolved by succession or voluntary transfer. The amount due from a consumer to the licensee is not a charge on the premises used by such consumer and the purchaser of the premises in revenue sale gets a clear title, subject to such encumbrances as may have existed on the date of the attachment under the Revenue Recovery Act. This decision of the Kerala High Court is an authority only for a proposition that the sum due from the consumer to the licensee is not a charge on the premises used by such consumer. That being so, the purchaser of the premises in voluntary transfer gets a clear title subject, of course, to the encumbrances as may have existed on the date of attachment. Even so, what is decided is the liability to pay the dues. The question as to the recovery of such dues from a given person, viz., the person who actually consumed the energy or from his successor or a person subsequently occupying, is entirely different from the question as to his right to the continuance or restoration of the electric supply after discontinuance without payment of dues on account of electricity consumed through the meter installed in those premises. Section 24 of the Electricity Act, read with condition 22-A of the General Conditions for Supply of Electrical Energy, speaks of a right of the Electricity Board to discontinue the supply or not to resume the supply after disconnection before payment of the dues. Unless the dues are so paid, the Board does have a right to discontinue or not to resume the supply. This right is dehors the right to recover the amount by a suit. This position is clear from the terms of Section 24 of the Electricity Act itself which specifically saves the right to recover such charge or other sum by a suit, it is only in the event of proceeding to recover the charge or the other sum by a suit, the question of liability of the consumer or his successor may be relevant and may assume importance. In the event of such a suit being filed for the recovery of the dues, the defendant may plead that the premises have not devolved on him by acquisition or voluntary transfer and since the dues are not a charge on the premises, he is not liable. Such a question, in our opinion, is, therefore, not germane for consideration where the claim by the occupant of the premises is for restoration of the electric supply without payment of dues for consumption of electricity by the previous occupant through the meter installed in those premises. In that event, as we have shown above, electric supply cannot be restored or resumed without payment of arrears of dues. The circulars referred to by the petitioners as also the decision of the Kerala High Court in Souriyar Luka's case (supra) do not advance the petitioners' case at all.
4. It was also urged, rather half-heartedly, that the dispute should be referred to the Electrical Inspector and unless that was done, the electrical supply could not be disconnected and must be restored. There is hardly any substance in this contention. Suffice it to mention that the question of restoration of electricity on payment of arrears of dues could not be shown to be a dispute requiring a determination by an Electrical Inspector, and further it could not be shown, as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 24, that even before issuance of notice of demand, the dispute has been referred to the Electrical Inspector. This contention, therefore, has been mentioned only to be rejected.
5. No other point was urged. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-.