Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity vs M/S Valecha Engineering Limited on 12 October, 2020
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
OMP No. 169 of 2020 in COMS No.22 of
2019
.
Reserved on: 14.08.2020
Date of Decision: October 12, 2020
The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity
Board Limited ...Non-applicant/Plaintiff.
Versus
1. M/s Valecha Engineering Limited
Parvati H.E. Project State-II
..Non-applicant/Defendant No.1.
2. National Hydro Power Corporation
Ltd. Parvati Electric Project-II
...Applicant/Defendant No.2.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Non-applicant/
Plaintiff: Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate,
through Video Conferencing.
For the Defendants: Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate, for non-
applicant/defendant No.1, through Video
Conference.
Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate,
with Mr.C.N. Singh, Advocate, for
applicant-defendant No.2, through Video
Conferencing.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
This application has been filed by applicant-
defendant No.2 National Hydro Power Corporation Limited (in short 'NHPC') for interim directions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 2read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC').
2. Non-applicant plaintiff, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') .
has filed main suit for recovery of `1,53,79,285/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 16% per annum from the defendants with respect to electricity connection provided to non-applicant/defendant No.1 at the work site of NHPC allegedly leviable upon non-applicant/defendant No.1 for unauthorized use of electricity as violation charges during existence of connection of electricity supply to non-applicant/defendant No.1. According to plaint, it was informed by NHPC that non-applicant/defendant No.1 has deserted construction site. It is further case of the Board that NHPC being a principal contractor has admitted its liability and agreed to pay electricity charges, but despite various reminders, it has failed to do so and, therefore, NHPC is also liable to pay electricity charges for consumption of electricity in execution of its work.
3. An application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC has also been filed by the Board for attachment of the property of defendants before judgment.
4. Now, this application has been preferred by NHPC against non-applicant/plaintiff for restraining it from taking any coercive action in the form of denying a power connection of 3- phase, 2077KW (Contract demand 1400 KVA), 11 KV to NHPC at its Parbati Hydro Electric Project Stage-II-I site at Village Sheela, ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 3 Barshaini in District Kullu and seeking direction to the Board to allow aforesaid power connection and issue Power Availability Certificate (in short 'PAC') in favour of NHPC during pendency of the suit. It is case of NHPC that despite the fact that dispute .
regarding recovery of `1,53,79,285/- is pending adjudication in the main suit, the Board is taking coercive action by not issuing PAC and providing power connection of 3-phase referred supra and is raising demand for payment of aforesaid amount, regarding which recovery suit is pending, before processing application of NHPC.
5. In response to the application, the Board has taken a stand that Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, in exercise of power conferred in it, under Section 50(x) of sub-
section (2) of Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, has made Regulations which have been notified in Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra on 04.07.2020, wherein it has been clearly stipulated that without clearing arrears, fresh connection cannot be granted in the same premises. It is further submitted that Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code 2009 (in short 'Electricity Supply Code, 2009'), as amended from time to time, in its Clause 5.2.13A, provides that in case of connection supply, sought to be released in the name of original consumer or owner or their legal heir, entire outstanding amount shall be recovered before release of new connection or release of supply for the premises in question and, therefore, in view of proviso to Clause 5.2.13A, ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 4 NHPC is liable to pay charges and consequently this application is not maintainable. It is also contended on behalf of the Board that as per provisions of 36.2.5.2.(4) Electricity Sales Manual Part-1, provides for charges to be levied at the time of .
restoration of supply after permanent disconnection and recovery of all outstanding amount of previous connection and as per mandate of Statute, new connection cannot be given without clearing previous charges/dues.
6. Main objection raised on behalf of the Board is that defendant-NHPC is precluded from filing present application and as such, this application is not maintainable and, therefore, liable to be dismissed as NHPC, being defendant, has no right to file such application for interim, as prayed, in a suit filed by the Board. It is further submitted that case of NHPC does not fall under Order 39 Rule 1(a) CPC and so far as Order 39 Rules 1(b) and 1(c) are concerned, NHPC has no right to file application on the grounds which are available to the Board under these provisions for filing an application for interim direction. It is further submitted that Order 39 CPC does not permit the NHPC for filing application of the nature as has been filed in present case, and even by invoking Section 151 of CPC, such application can neither be maintained nor is to be held maintainable and, thus, for want of specific provisions under Order 39 CPC, entitling NHPC to maintain present application, this application deserves to be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 57. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the Board in Padam Sen and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 218; Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527; and Shakunthalamma .
vs. Kanthamma, AIR 2015 Karnataka 13.
8. Learned counsel for NHPC has relied upon Sivakami Achi vs. Narayana Chettiar, AIR 1939 Madras 495; Rattu vs. Mala, AIR 1968 Rajasthan 212; Suganda Bai vs. Sulu Bai and others, AIR 1975 Karnataka 137; Dr. Ashis Ranjan Das vs. Rajendra Nath Mullick, AIR 1982 Calcutta 529, Central Warehousing Corporation vs. Prabhu Narain Singh and another, AIR 2003 Allahabad 223; Shiv Ram Singh vs. Smt. Mangara and others, AIR 1989 Allahabad 164; Tanusree Basu and others vs. Ishani Prasad Basu and others, (2008) 4 SCC 791; Rikhabsao Nathusao Jain vs. Corporation of the City of Nagpur and others, (2009) 1 SCC 240; and Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and another, (1995) 2 SCC 648. He has also referred the judgments already cited by and on behalf of the Board.
9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments referred by them.
10. To decide this application, for submission made, following questions are necessary to be determined:-
1. Whether defendants can file an application for temporary injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiff?::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 6
2. Whether present application filed by NHPC is maintainable? and
3. If yes whether NHPC is entitled for relief sought in this application?
.
11. Relevant provisions of Order 39 Rule 1, Sections 94 and 151 of CPC, necessary to be considered for adjudication in this application are as under:-
Order-39 "1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.-
Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-
(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, [(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,] the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders." Section-94 "94. Supplemental proceedings.-In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,-
(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 7 to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;
(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the .
attachment of any property;
(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;
(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;
(e) make such other interlocutory
orders as may appear to the Court to be
just and convenient."
Section-151
"151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."
12. As is evident from bare provisions of Order 39 Rule 1(a), plaintiff as well as defendant are entitled to maintain application for temporary injunction, where property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree.
However, such right is not available to the defendant under Order 39 Rules 1(b) and 1(c).
13. Section 94(c) and (e) empowers the Court to grant temporary injunction and to make such interlocutory order as deemed just and convenient by the Court, if it is so prescribed. It means that for exercising power granted to the Court to prevent ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 8 ends of justice being defeated under Section 94 of IPC, express provision prescribing the same in the Rules must be there.
However, no such limitation has been provided under Section 151 CPC, which provides saving of inherent power of the Court .
by stating that nothing in CPC shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such order as may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, power under Section 151 of CPC is not inhibited by the provision of Section 94 CPC or Order 39 CPC. However, in pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts referred supra, particularly as reiterated in Padam Sen's and Manohar Lal Chopra's cases its inherent jurisdiction, should be exercised by the Court only when it considers it absolutely necessary for ends of justice to do so. In addition, Supreme Court has also placed three restrictions on exercise of inherent power by the Court, which are as under:-
"1. Firstly, the inherent power should not be exercised in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the CPC;
2. Secondly, the power cannot be exercised against the intention of the legislature; and
3. Thirdly, it shall not be exercised in a manner, which would be contrary to or different from the procedure expressly provided in the CPC."
14. In Sivakami Achi's case application filed by the defendant was held to be maintainable under Order 39 Rule 1(a) CPC.
15. In Rattu's case, Rajasthan High Court has also referred judgment passed in Sivakami Achi's case in the ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 9 arguments of the defendant, but without relying thereon, revision petition was dismissed with modification for the reason that plaintiff had delivered possession over the fields to the defendant and in it issue of maintainability of application filed by the .
defendant was not considered on merit.
16. In Sugandha Bai's case relying upon earlier decision of English Court titled as Collison vs. Warren, (1901) 1 Ch. 812, it was held by High Court of Karnataka that defendant can maintain an application for interim injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiff, where defendant's claim of relief arises out of the plaintiff's cause of action or is incidental to it. But this judgment has been overruled by Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Shakunthalamma's case.
17. Judgment of Single Bench of Karnataka High Court, in Sugandha Bai's case, though has been overruled by Full Bench of the said High Court in Shakunthalamma's judgment, however subsequent thereto it has also been referred and relied upon by other High Courts like Allahabad High Court and Calcutta High Court in judgments referred herein. Reason assigned by Full Bench for overruling is that there is no provision in the CPC providing such impediment by stating that when Statute prescribes a particular procedure set out in a provision in which word 'cause of action' is conspicuously missing it is not possible to hold that a defendant can maintain application for injunction if it is based on the same cause of action as that of the plaintiff or incidental thereto. In my considered opinion this reason may be ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 10 valid with respect to application preferred under Order 39 CPC where procedure has been set out in CPC but the same may not correct with respect to an application, to be preferred by defendant, invoking inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, .
when it has been held that in a suit by plaintiff, defendant can file an application for interim injunction, on a ground other than as available under Order 39 Rule 1(a) CPC, by invoking inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, then in absence of specific provision, the Court is not only empowered but under obligation to define just, reasonable, relevant and logical limits for exercise of such right. Thus, in case of filing of an application by defendant invoking inherent powers of the Court it would be appropriate to impose such condition as envisaged in Sugabndha Bai's case.
18. In judgment Dr.Ashis Ranjan Das's case, passed by learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court, after considering Sugandha Bai's case and judgment in Carter vs. Fey, reported in 1894(2) Ch. 541, the application for interim direction filed by the defendant has been held maintainable on the ground that defendant's case for relief was arising out of the plaintiff's cause of action and in any event it was incidental thereto.
19. The Single Bench of Allahabad High Court in Central Warehousing Corporation's case, has held that application of defendant for interim injunction, in a suit by the plaintiff, was maintainable for being arisen out of plaintiff's cause of action as well as under Order 39 Rule 1(a) of CPC.
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 1120. In Shiv Ram Singh's case, Single Bench of Allahabad High Court, after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra's case and other judgments of the Allahabad High Court, has held that where case .
of defendant is not covered under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, there also, Court has jurisdiction to grant interim injunction under its inherent power, where it is deemed necessary by the Court under the compelling circumstances to do so for the ends of justice and/or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
21. The Supreme Court in Tanusree Basu's and Rikhabsao Nathusao Jain's cases, has reiterated the principle propounded in Mahohar Lal Chopra's case that it is a well settled principle of law that Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is not the sole repository of the power of the Court to grant injunction and Section 151 of CPC confers power upon the Court to grant injunction if the matter is not covered by Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of CPC.
22. After considering judgments referred supra, on the issue and provisions of Sections 94 and 151 read with Order 39 of CPC, according to my considered view, answer to first question is that defendant, in appropriate facts and circumstances, can file an application for temporary injunction/interim order in a suit filed by the plaintiff in following terms:-
(1) Under Order 39 Rule 1(a) of the CPC both the plaintiff and the defendant can maintain an ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 12 application for the reliefs set out in the said provision;
(2) Insofar as relief under Order 39 Rule 1(b) and (c) is concerned, such a relief is available .
only to the plaintiff and the defendant cannot maintain an application for the said reliefs in a suit filed by the plaintiff irrespective of the fact that his right to such relief arises either from the same cause of action or arises subsequent to filing of the suit. However, it is open to the defendant to maintain a separate suit against the plaintiff and seek relief provided under Order 39 Rule 1(b) and (c) of the CPC;
(3) In cases which do not fall under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief of injunction in its discretion, if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Court and nothing in this CPC shall limit or otherwise affect such inherent power of the Court;
(4) Inherent power can be invoked by both plaintiff and defendant for seeking injunction but it should be connected or related to subject matter of the suit directly or indirectly, having probability of impact on interest of parties;
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 13(5) Invoking inherent powers of the Court, defendant can maintain an application for interim injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiff, where defendant's claim of relief arises out of .
the plaintiff's cause of action or is incidental to it; and (6) Invoking of inherent power for issuing temporary injunction and/or passing interim order should not be in conflict with express provision of CPC in any way, against the intention of the legislature in any manner and r contrary to or different from express procedure contained in CPC.
23. In present case, NHPC has filed this application for restraining the Board from recovering the amount, for recovery of which present suit has been filed, from NHPC for consideration of its application submitted to the Board for power connection in its own name on the Project Site. The Civil Suit has been filed for recovery of amount by the Board, with respect to consumption of electricity in a connection allotted to non-applicant/defendant No.1, a Contractor, in the Project Site of NHPC.
24. It is claim of the Board that the defendants are liable to pay the said amount. So far as demand for payment of the said amount for consideration of application of NHPC is concerned, it is submitted that in view of provisions of sub-para 5.2.13A inserted in the Electricity Supply Code, 2009, vide 4 th ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 14 amendment 2020 of the Regulations, Board is empowered to do so and recovery of entire outstanding amount is precondition before release of new connection or release of supply for the premises in the name of original consumer or owner or his legal .
heirs, in case there is outstanding amount against the previous consumer for a connection/supply of the premises. Sub-para 5.2.13A reads as under:-
"The licensee will also be entitled to recover, in addition to the charges recoverable by it under the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012 and any other relevant regulations for providing connection and supply, the outstanding amount against r the previous consumer from the next owner/occupier of the premises subject to a maximum limit of the amount equal to the average billing for two months worked out on the average for past twelve months immediately prior to the temporary disconnection of the previous consumer:
Provided that in case the connection/supply is sought to be released in the name of the original consumer or owner or their legal heirs, the entire outstanding amount shall be recovered before release of new connection or release of supply for the premises:
Provided further that the amount to be recovered on this account shall not exceed the total updated outstanding amount, including the interest after permanent disconnection, but after adjustment of the security deposit of the previous consumer:
Provided further that the Licensee shall recover the balance outstanding amount, if any, after adjustment of the amount recovered from the new occupier, through any other means available to it:
Provided further that in case the connection is released after recovery of earlier dues from the new applicant/consumer and the licensee, ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 15 after resorting to appropriate remedies, recovers the full or part of the dues from the previous consumer/owner or occupier of that premise, the amount so recovered shall be adjusted against the expenses incurred to recover such dues as well as the balance outstanding dues against the original .
consumer, not recovered from the new consumer, and the balance if any after such adjustment shall be refunded to the new consumer/owner or occupier from whom the dues have been recovered:
Provided further that in cases where the new consumer avails the relief in the infrastructure development charges payable by it as per the special provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012 whereunder the payment of entire outstanding dues is a precondition, the provisions of this sub-
para shall not be applicable and in such cases the relevant provisions of HPERC (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012 shall have overriding effect."
25. As submitted by learned counsel for the Board that application of NHPC for providing connection and supply of electricity is at the stage of issuance of PAC for a prospective consumer as the NHPC, earlier had applied for PAC for 1000 KW with Contract Demand of 625 KVA on 24.04.2020 and thereafter an application for PAC for 2077 KW load with 1400 KVA Contract Demand has been submitted on 23.06.2020. In response thereto, Electricity Board has issued a Demand Notice to clear outstanding amount on the basis of new Regulations 5.2.13A of the Electricity Supply Code, 2009 and after payment of outstanding amount feasibility of new connection would be checked and in case it is found feasible then, Demand Notice will ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 16 be issued for advanced cost share towards IDC as per Clause 3.2 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2009 and in case amount is deposited in 60 days, thereafter PAC will be issued to the consumer, otherwise PAC will be rejected.
.
26. Learned counsel for the Board has further submitted that after issuance of PAC, NHPC shall have to file an application for new electricity connection alongwith valid PAC and agreement Form CS-1. Thereafter, test report of installation as well as safety clearance from Chief Electrical Inspector would be obtained and manual instructions, with respect to receipt of application, acknowledgement thereof and posting of application in service register and maintaining separate seniority list, will be followed and connected load will be verified as per Instruction No.4 and thereafter load will be sanctioned as per Instruction No.6 and thereafter with intimation of acceptance of application, Demand Notice will be issued and agreement will be executed as per Instruction No. 7 and at this stage, prospective consumer would acquire the status of consumer and as per Instruction No.12, account number shall be allotted to him.
27. According to learned counsel for the Board, for processing application of NHPC for PAC and electricity connection, payment of entire outstanding amount with respect to connection availed by the previous consumer in the same premises is mandatory and, therefore, interim prayer made by NHPC is liable to be rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 1728. In response, learned counsel for NHPC, referring pronouncement of the Apex Court in Isha Marbles' case, has contended that liability of non-applicant/defendant No.1 cannot be imposed upon applicant-NHPC. Relevant paras of the .
judgment, as referred, are as under:-
"56. From the above it is clear that the High Court has chosen to construe Section 24 of the Electricity Act correctly. There is no charge over the property. Where that premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction-purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a condition precedent to supply. What matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the Board. The Board r cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party. Of course, the bona fides of the sale may not be relevant.
57. The form of requisition relating to the contract is in Annexure VIII prescribed under clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act. They cannot make the auction-purchaser liable. In the case of Isha Marbles we have already extracted the relevant clause wherein the consumer was asked to state his willingness to clear off the arrears to which the answer was in the negative. Therefore, the High Court has rightly held that the auction-purchaser, namely "the writ petitioner before us is ready and willing to enter into a new contract ( sic and) that the auction-purchaser does not intend to obtain the continuance of supply of electrical energy on the basis of the old agreement." It is true that it was the same premises to which reconnection is to be given. Otherwise, with the change of every ownership new connections have to be issued does not appear to be the correct line of approach as such a situation is brought about by the inaction of the Electricity Board ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 18 in not recovering the arrears as and when they fall due or not providing itself by adequate deposits.
58. .........
59. .........
60. ... ... ...
61. What we have discussed above appears to be .
the law gatherable from the various provisions which we have detailed out above. It is impossible to impose on the purchasers a liability which was not incurred by them."
29. Learned counsel for the Board has submitted that pronouncement of the Apex Court in Isha Marbles' case , is based upon unamended Electricity Supply Code 2009 and after insertion of sub-para 5.2.13A in the Regulations, this judgment has become irrelevant for the purpose of adjudication of present case. Further, he has also referred documents alongwith plaint, which indicate that in the year 2016 electricity connection allotted to non-applicant/defendant No.1 was disconnected for non-payment of electricity charges. However, thereafter, for intervention of officers of NHPC, whereby the Board was assured that in case of non-payment of charges by non-applicant/ defendant No.1, applicant-NHPC would deduct the said amount from the amount payable to non-applicant/defendant No.1 and would release it to the Board, connection was restored in favour of non-applicant/defendant No.1 in October 2018, but NHPC had failed to deduct the amount payable to the Board and, therefore, NHPC is also liable to pay such charges and on this count also, demand raised by the Board to pay entire outstanding amount ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 19 before consideration of the application submitted by NHPC, is justified.
30. With respect to claim of applicant-NHPC that it is suffering loss of approximately `5 Crores per day, learned .
counsel for the Board has responded that NHPC would have deposited demanded amount which is a sum of `1,53,79,285/- to avoid loss of `5 Crores per day, as claimed in the application, as if amount so demanded is paid by NHPC, same would be adjustable against other charges payable by applicant-NHPC, in terms of decision of the Civil Court as well as recovery of the amount from non-applicant/defendant No.1, as provided in fourth proviso to para 5.2.13A of Regulations.
31. As is evident from the subject matter of the application and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the subject matter of the application and relief sought therein, is connected and related to the subject matter of the suit, therefore, applicant-NHPC is entitled to maintain this application and to seek relief sought for. However, as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, relief sought can be granted or not, is another issue.
32. Considering entire factual matrix of the case, submissions made on behalf of parties and provisions of Electricity Supply Code, the Board is directed to consider the case of the applicant-NHPC for issuance of PAC as well as allotting new electrical connection, subject to deposit of a sum of `1,53,79,285/- by applicant-NHPC in the Registry of this Court ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP 20 within four weeks from today or furnish a bank guarantee amounting to `2 Crores to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) within the same period.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), .
Judge.
October 12, 2020
(Purohit)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:30 :::HCHP