Patna High Court - Orders
Anjani Kumar & Ors vs The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company ... on 16 October, 2015
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12380 of 2015
======================================================
Anjani Kumar & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Bihar State Power (holding) Company Limited & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA
PRATAP SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 16-10-2015Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Electricity Board and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.8.
It is not in dispute that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were tenants of respondent no.8, namely, Anjani Kumar Saxena. The petitioner no.1 is husband of petitionerno.2.
It appears from the pleading that respondent no.8 entered into a development agreement with one M/s Jyoti Developers, Patna for development of the land at Ward No. 2, Circle No. 6, Holding Nos. 385, 386 and 387, on 09.09.1995, in the township of Patna. Besides this, respondent no.8 had lent his premises on tenancy to some other persons as well. The electric meter was in the name of respondent no.8 and on the basis of load of different tenants, the respondent no.8 used to realize the amount from the tenants.
On inspection of the premises, the respondent Power 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.12380 of 2015 (5) dt.16-10-2015 2/5 Holding Company discovered theft of electricity in one of its inspection on 24.12.2012, wherein a loss of Rs.22,729/- was alleged and the outstanding amount on account of excessive reading Rs.2,74,115/-.
It is the case of the landlord that in order to avoid payment, he (respondent no.8) deposited the entire amount, which was in fact the liabilities of the petitioners. Consequent to electricity theft, the Power Holding Company instituted a case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act giving rise to Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 420 of 2012, which led to registration of Spl. Case No. 324 of 2012. The dispute arose between the tenants and the landlord with regard to liability of Rs. 2,74,115/-, which was further supported the petitioners' claim that the premises, which they were occupying full in the share of the developer, who issued a possession certificate in their names. The respondent no.8 contested the right of the developer, as a result, the landlord filed Eviction Suit in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Patna giving rise to Eviction Suit Nos. 48 of 2013 and 51 of 2013.
On the other hand, the petitioners on the basis of possession certificate granted by the developer, applied for electric connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, which was allowed and electric connection was given.
3 Patna High Court CWJC No.12380 of 2015 (5) dt.16-10-20153/5
Being aggrieved, respondent no.8 moved before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGRF') bearing case no. 97 of 2014. The CGRF after hearing the parties came to a conclusion that the it was the liability of the petitioners to have paid the electricity bill to the tune of Rs. 2,74,116/-, which was paid by respondent no.8 to avoid disconnection of electricity. The CGRF disposed of the application with the following directions:(1) the petitioners should pay back a sum of Rs.2,74,115/- to respondent no.8 and, (ii) on furnishing of relevant documents, the concerned authorities of the Power Holding Company would restore the electric connection.
The petitioners have questioned the order of CGRF. They submit that the learned CGRF exceeded its jurisdiction in adjudicating as to who was liable to pay the electric dues of the meter, which stood in the name of the landlord. They further submit that the nature of the dispute traverse beyond the jurisdiction of CGRF circumscribed by Regulation 2 (F) of CGRF Regulation, 2006.
Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Power Holding Company, submits that a request for electric connection can only be made, if the provisions under Section 43 of the Electricity Act read with Section 4.13 of the Bihar Electricity 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.12380 of 2015 (5) dt.16-10-2015 4/5 Supply code, 2007 are satisfied. He submits that the petitioners would not be the owner, as they have failed to furnish sufficient documents with respect to ownership of the property. Similarly, they would not be tenant even, as they over stayed the lease period. He has drawn my attention to explanations to Section 43 to mean an application complete in all respect in appropriate form, as requested by the licensee along with application showing payment of necessary charges and other compliance. He has also placed reliance of Clause 4.1.3 of the Supply Code.
On the other hand, counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioners are tenants since 2001, till time they got possession certificate of the land in question from the developer, who had 50% share in the premises. He submits that the petitioners are occupant and as per the substantive provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, his electric connection ought not to have been disconnected. He submits that the definition of occupier cannot be given a restricted meaning and in support of the same he has relied upon Full Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Abhimanyu Mazumdar Vs. The Superintending Engineer and Another, reported in AIR 2011 Cal
64. He has also placed reliance upon a decision in case of Radhe Shyam Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2014 SCC 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.12380 of 2015 (5) dt.16-10-2015 5/5 On Line All 8036. He has also referred to a Division bench judgment in case of M/S Lazee Restaurant & Lagan Banquet Hall Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, passed in L.P.A. No. 1139 of 2012 disposed of on 13.08.2012. The reliance has also been placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandu Khamaru Vs. Nayan Malik & Others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 314.
Put up this case on 02.11.2015.
In the meantime, the Board would grant temporary electric connections on deposit of a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which would be adjustable and subject to the result of this writ application.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Uday/-
U