Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ashish Sharma Son Of Shri Satyanarayan ... vs Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd on 3 November, 2023
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:31410]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 115/2019
Anant Kasliwal S/o Shri Ram Chandra Kasliwal, R/o Sb-14,
Bhawani Singh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-15.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Urban Development And Housing,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8543/2016
M/s Solanki Dye Chem Magic Text Through Its Proprietor Ishak
Mohd. S/o Ali Mohammed, Plot No. 1-B, S.m.s. Colony, Maharani
Farm, Sanganer, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Water
Resource, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, J.l.n.
Marg, Jaipur
4. The Chairman, Discom, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur
5. The A.e.n. B-Iv, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 680/2019
Shakuntala Sharma W/o Shri Ravikant Sharma D/o Shri Lala
Ram Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Shribalaji
Vihar, Heerapath Road, Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (2 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5189/2019
Mohan Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o Plot No. A-5, Shanti Niketan Colony, Barkat
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6762/2019
Smt. Sushila Devi Wife Of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About
58 Years, R/o Plot No. 35, Shribalaji Vihar, Heerapath Road,
Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6877/2019
Lalaram Sharma Son Of Shri Kishan Sharma, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Plot No. 76, Giriraj Nagar, Patrakar Road, Golyawas,
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (3 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Japur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6878/2019
Babu Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Lalaram Sharma, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Plot No. 76, Parasram Nagar, Patrakar Road,
Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Japur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6886/2019
Pushpa Sharma Wife Of Shri Babulal Sharma, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Brahmano Ki Dhani, Beed, Etawa Bhop Ji, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Japur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8744/2019
Mahendra Sharma Son Of Shri Lalaram Sharma, Aged About 23
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (4 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
Years, R/o Plot No. 76, Parasram Nagar, Patrakar Road,
Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8754/2019
Gauri Shankar Sharma Son Of Shri Jagannath Sharma, Aged
About 66 Years, R/o Kulchaniya Ki Dhani, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9700/2019
Smt. Santosh Devi Sharma Wife Of Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 72, Shiv Vatika, New
Sanganer Road, Mangyawas, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (5 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11856/2019
Ashish Sharma Son Of Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Plot No. 161, Mahaveer Nagar-B, Muhana Road,
Village Golyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11943/2019
Kailashchand Sharma Son Of Late Shri Roopnarayan, Aged About
48 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 24, Parasram Nagar, Golyawas,
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14667/2020
Lokesh Kumar Son Of Shri Jagannath Prasad Verma, Aged About
30 Years, Resiident Of Plot No. 73-A, Hanuman Vihar, Near
Brahman Ki Thadi, Village Khejado Ka Bas, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (6 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4836/2021
Lalaram Sharma S/o Late Shri Kishan Sharma, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Plot No. 69, Shri Balaji Vihar, Golyawas, Mansarovar,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd,
Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10045/2021
Beena Choudhary Wife Of Shri Jeet Singh, Aged About 68 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. K-22, Maa Vaishno Devi Nagar, Gandhi Path-
West, Lalarpura Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
Bhankrota, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10080/2021
Harish Kumar Shrivastav S/o Shri Govind Narayan, Aged About
49 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 2, Maa Vaishno Nagar, Gandhi
Path-West, Lalarpura Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (7 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
Bhankrota, Jaipur.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 1/2023
Anant Kasliwal Son Of Shri Ram Chandra Kasliwal, R/o Sb-14,
Bhawani Singh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Urban Development And Housing,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner Jaipur Development Authority, Jln
Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bipin Gupta, for JVVNL
Mr. Prahlad Sharma
Ms. Sunita Sharma
Mr. Rajesh Kapoor
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Bapna, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Banwari Singh
Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with
Mr. J.S. Shekhawat
Mr. P.N. Bhandari, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Rachit Sharma for
Mr. Jai Lodha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
Reserved on: 02/06/2023
Pronounced on: 03/11/2023
1. Since common question of law is involved in all these
matters, with the consent of the parties, they were heard together
and are now being decided by way of this common order, with S.B.
Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 115/2019 being taken as lead
file.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (8 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
BACKGROUND
2. The misc. application along with the connected writ petitions
pertains to release of electricity connection to premises situated in
Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme (for short "PRN scheme") of the Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur (for short "JDA"). The PRN Scheme
has been the subject of various litigation in not only this Court,
but also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the last round of
litigation, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
05.07.2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2740/2013 & other
connected petitions titled as 'Sugan Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.' reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2070,
while hearing a challenge to the order dated 21.06.2012 issued by
Department of Urban Development and Housing (for short "UDH")
which directed JDA to allot plot in favour of illegal occupier of the
land after taking certain charges, passed the following directions:
"The perusal of the rule quoted above shows that in
what circumstances and to what extent government can
relax the rules. In the light of the provision aforesaid and as
said rules have been invoked while passing the impugned
order, the rate fixed for allotment of land cannot be
interfered as such in view of the policy decision of the
government. Rule 8, 9, 12, 14, 14B, 15, 15A and 17 of the
Rules of 1974 provide manner and procedure for allotment
of land. Rule 31 of the Rules of 1974 however gives power
to government to relax rule for price, size of plot etc. This
rule has been invoked looking to various aspects which
include size of people to be affected and if a decision for
allotment in accordance with the rules and for planned
development of the area is not taken, demolition of
thousands of houses with reconstruction would be nothing
but a national wastage.
It is, however, necessary to comment that an
area is developed only when government gets
sufficient funds hence while fixing the rates for
development charges, it should be at the actual cost
to be borne by the respondents for development of
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (9 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
the area thus development charges should be fixed
keeping in view the aforesaid and the area should be
developed immediately in the planned manner. For
the aforesaid purpose, if constructions are to be
removed, then this judgment will not come in the
way of the respondents, rather they are directed not
to sacrifice planned development to save
encroachments and illegal constructions. It should
be carried out as per the plan.
In view of the detailed discussion on all the issues,
the writ petitions are allowed with following directions-
1. The respondents are directed to allot plots to those
petitioners who not only remained successful in the draw of
lottery but deposited the amount pursuant to the demand
letter issued to them. It would obviously leaving those who
had withdrawn their amount or opted for other scheme(s)
followed by issuance of lease deed.
2. The respondents may further consider cases of another
category of petitioners who had deposited registration fee
and paid the amount in part pursuant to the draw of lottery
and demand letter. It would be expected of the respondents
that a proper and sympathetic view would be taken for
second category of petitioners at the earliest and, if
possible, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. This would exclude those who
had opted for other scheme and thereupon given lease deed
or withdrawn the amount.
3. So far as the impugned order dated 21.6.2012 at
Annexure-16B, passed by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development and Housing (UDH) (in
CW 2740/2006 "Sugan Singh v. State of Rajasthan") is
concerned, it cannot be given effect to as it has not been
expressed in the name of HE the Governor so as to comply
the mandate of rule 11 of the Rules of Business so as Article
166(1) of the Constitution of India. The respondents would
however be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with
rule 11 of the Rules of Business so as Article 166(1) of the
Constitution, if it has not already been issued.
4. The respondents are further directed to even carry out
development work of Kalpana Nagar area where some of
the initial applicants not only opted but given lease deed.
Such development should be carried out in phased manner
and, if possible, within a period of six months.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (10 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
5. A direction has been given in para (3) above not to give
effect to the order dated 21.6.2012 as it has not been
expressed in the name of HE the Governor, however, the
issue pertaining to it has been raised in the writ petition and
discussed. A request is made by both the parties for
necessary directions thus further directions are issued.
Following directions would apply if fresh order is issued or
has already been issued as per liberty given above.
A. The respondents will not sacrifice development of
the area rather development would be made as per
the plan. If any encroachment or construction is
raised creating obstruction for planned development
of road, facility area etc, such
construction/encroachment would be removed by the
respondents. They would however be at liberty to
rehabilitate such persons in accordance with the Rules of
1974 or by a policy decision, if not already framed.
B. The allotment of commercial plots should be in
accordance with the Rules of 1974.
C. The allotment of plots for residential purpose would be
subject to the directions in para (A) above. The
respondents would further make distinction between
those who raised construction and those who did not
raise construction on the disputed land. The
respondents are directed to take proper decision as to
whether allotment should be made in favour of those who
raised construction after 9.4.2003, the date of stay order
passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 6709/2002, which was
finally disposed of by this court vide order dated
29.10.2010. If decision comes favourable taking into
consideration larger public interest and to avoid demolition
of construction resulting in national wastage, then also they
are directed to appropriately determine penal amount or
higher rate of allotment for those who raised construction
after the date mentioned above. The identification of
such persons would be made based on the date of
electricity connection on the plot. The respondents
would further be at liberty to impose lesser penalty on
those who are poor and small plot holders i.e. who are
having plot size upto 250 square yards.
D. The cases of those applicants who had either opted or
granted lease deed elsewhere or withdrawn the amount
would not be reviewed and will have no right pursuant to
the judgment of this court as on withdrawal or issuance of
lease deed elsewhere, their applications got exhausted.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (11 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
E. The respondents are further directed to determine
the development charges after taking note of the
amount required for development of road, electricity,
sewerage etc. The amount so collected would be used
for proper development of the area with required
infrastructure.
F. Till the allotment is made in favour of the
petitioners or others, respondents are directed not to
release electricity connections. This is to avoid
possibility of further construction without allotment
of plot.
In case of any difficulty in carrying out the directions
aforesaid or otherwise, affected parties would be at liberty
to make appropriate application before this court for
clarification/modification.
(emphasis supplied)"
3. The bone of contention in this misc. application along with
the connected writ petitions is the condition F, as reproduced
above, which necessitates a valid allotment in favour of any
person seeking release of electricity connection. Being aggrieved
of the said condition, the applicant-JVVNL has filed the present
misc. application.
SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS
4. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL, Mr. Bipin Gupta,
submits that as the applicant-JVVNL was not a party in Sugan
Singh (supra), the applicant-JVVNL is constrained to file the
present application for modification of order dated 05.07.2013, in
pursuance to liberty being granted by this Court vide order dated
05.07.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL submits that
the restrictions imposed vide condition F regarding non-release of
electrical connection is causing serious operational and financial
crisis to the applicant-JVVNL, which is an instrumentality of State,
and such loss to the applicant-JVVNL is loss to the public
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (12 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
exchequer. It is submitted that a number of houses have already
been constructed and people living there are using the electricity
in an unauthorized manner. It is contended that such theft in the
area is difficult to control on account the people living there and
especially the dire law and order situation which is created as and
when the Anti Evasion Squad visits the area concerned. The
resultant position is that there is large scale electricity theft in
PRN, which is difficult to control. Learned counsel for the
applicant-JVVNL has also highlighted that there is constant
apprehension of injury to life/limb of the employees of the
applicant-JVVNL who are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring
proper electrical supply and prevention of theft in PRN Scheme
due to threat from a large number of users who are forced to take
supply of electricity in an unauthorized manner due to the
restriction imposed by this Court. Learned counsel for the
applicant-JVVNL has also emphasized that the applicant-JVVNL is
also facing a lot of operational issues/losses in the form of
destruction/obstruction to the transmission lines in the PRN
Scheme by the users of electricity who tamper with the supply
infrastructure.
5. On merits, learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL submits
that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts an obligation
upon the applicant-JVVNL to supply electricity to either the owner
or occupier of the premise entitled to receive electricity
connection. It is contended that electricity being a basic right,
Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts an absolute obligation
upon the applicant-JVVNL to ensure supply of electricity to the
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (13 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
owner or occupier of the premise entitled to receive the supply. As
per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, all that the applicant-
JVVNL has to see is whether the person seeking supply of
electricity is in occupation of the premise that is entitled to receive
supply. Whether the occupation of said premise is lawful or not is
of no consequence and would not hinder the statutory obligation
cast upon the applicant to ensure supply of electricity. On the said
aspect and on the expansive interpretation of the word 'occupier',
learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL has relied on the following
judgments:
i.) Dilip (Dead) through L.Rs. vs. Satish and Ors. (Neutral
Citation: 2022/INSC/570);
ii.) Laxmi Ram Pawar vs. Sitabai Balu Dhotre and Ors.:
AIR 2011 SC 450;
iii.) K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.
(Neutral Citation: 2023/INSC/560): 2023 (8) SCALE 564;
iv.) Abhimanyu Mazumdar v. Superintending Engineer: AIR
2011 Calcutta 64;
v.) Amarendra Singh vs. Calcutta Electric Supply
Corporation Ltd. and Ors.: AIR 2008 Calcutta 66;
vi.) Tarun Dey v. Andaman & Nicobar Administration: 2018
SCC OnLine Cal 5582;
vii.) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors. vs. Jayanthi
Sundhar and Ors.: AIR 2015 Madras 197;
viii.) Sudharshan Kumar Sharma and Ors. vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2022/DHC/004833):
2022 SCC OnLine Del 3720;
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (14 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
ix.) Om Parkash v. Balkar Singh: 2022 SCC OnLine P&H
3733;
x.) Kanubhai Jethabhai Rohit and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat
and Ors.: AIR 2018 Gujarat 21.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL further submits that
the prayer of the petitioners in Sugan Singh (supra) has been
successfully addressed by the JDA and furthermore the directions
of this Court have been complied with in letter and in spirit. It is
submitted that as per JDA letter dated 07.08.2018, the grievance
of all the petitioners in Sugan Singh (supra) have been
addresses and they have either been allotted plots in the PRN
scheme or allotted plots in Kalpana Colony. Thus, the endeavour of
this Court to protect and give primacy to the bona-fide and
legitimate rights of the petitioners therein over the encroachers by
not releasing electricity connection to the latter has already been
achieved. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL further
contends that grant of electricity connection cannot regularize the
claim of encroachers, nor will grant of electricity connection create
any right whatsoever in favour of the purported encroachers. The
JVVNL and JDA, though instrumentalities of the same State, are
distinct bodies with different functions and powers. Any electricity
connection by the applicant-JVVNL cannot immunise the
encroachment from appropriate action, nor can any trespasser
claim that since Discom has released electricity connection, no
action be taken against his/her encroachment.
7. Supporting the contentions made by Mr. Bipin Gupta, learned
counsel for the applicant-JVVNL, learned counsels for the various
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (15 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
petitioners contends that lease deed/patta is not sine qua non for
release of electricity connection. It is contended that electricity is
an essential service and right to receive essential service is a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, which cannot be restricted on technical ground of not
having lease deed of a premise which is otherwise entitled to
receive supply of electricity.
8. Learned counsel cum Amicus Curiae, Mr. P.N. Bhandari,
submits that the operation of Section 43 of the Electricity Act,
2003 cannot be diluted, directly or indirectly, since the
constitutional validity of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not
challenged. Learned Amicus Curiae has relied on Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Dhanraj vs. Vikram Singh (Civil
Appeal No. 3117/2009; decided on 10.05.2023) to submit
that there being no challenge to the vires of provisions of
Electricity Act, 2003, and in absence of specific pleading, Writ
Court should not go into the issue of repugnancy. It is submitted
that the case of Sugan Singh (supra) was only concerned about
the development of PRN Scheme and since the Discoms were not
a party therein, no opportunity was given to the Discoms to make
submissions about the legal implication of Section 43 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. It is further submitted that by virtue of
condition F, the Co-ordinate Bench had in effect stayed the
operation of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the opinion
of the learned Amicus Curiae, since such a stay should not and
could not have been granted, necessary modification of order
dated 05.07.2013 is required. Learned Amicus Curiae further
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (16 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
opined that issuance of lease deed and grant of electricity
connection are two separate and independent exercises with one
having no bearing on the other. Merely because electricity
connections are released to occupants of a premise which is
entitled to receive supply, would not preclude the JDA or other
competent authorities to proceed against the land
grabbers/encroachers, as the release of electric connection to
anyone cannot fortify the claims of any trespasser.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT
9. As per the minutes of meeting dated 03.05.2023, which was
presided over by Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, the stand of
the State is that denying the supply of electricity to residents of
PRN Scheme who do not possess lease deed/patta would not be in
consonance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr. G. S Bapna,
representing the JDA, and the erstwhile counsel for JDA, Mr. Punit
Singhvi, have opposed the prayer made in the present misc.
application along with the connected writ petitions. At the outset,
learned counsels for the JDA emphasized that the Co-ordinate
Bench judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 has
not been assailed and has thus attained finality. As per learned
senior counsel for the JDA, 'occupier' has to be read as 'peaceful
occupier'. As per him, the UDH order dated 22.12.2014 is still in
force, which necessitates presentation of lease deed/patta to
secure electricity connection in the area/scheme in question.
Learned counsels for the JDA have taken the Court through the
history of the PRN scheme and have placed strong reliance on
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (17 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Suo Moto vs. State
of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6709/2002;
decided on 29.10.2010) and judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Sugan Singh (supra) to submit that the
endeavour of both the Division Bench and Co-ordinate Bench was
to ensure the planned development of PRN Scheme strictly in
conformity to the provisions of law.
11. Highlighting the intricate history of the PRN Scheme, learned
counsels for the JDA submits that the land was acquired for the
scheme to establish a residential colony. The said acquisition was
challenged by several people, but the acquisition was upheld both
by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Scheme
however faced a lot of implementation challenges on account of
the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings and the fact that
a few housing societies formulated their own schemes and allotted
plots to the people. At one stage, the State government decided
to de-acquire the land vide order dated 23.09.2002, a decision
which was stayed by Division Bench of this Court by taking suo
moto cognizance. The order 23.09.2002 was subsequently
withdrawn and the Division Bench thereupon decided suo moto
petition vide order dated 29.10.2010 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
6709/2002 confirming acquisition of land and vesting it in the
government. A further direction was also given to carry out
planned development of the area. A restraint order was also
passed against construction apart from continuing other interim
orders passed from time to time in suo moto petition. One such
interim order was a clarificatory order dated 07.08.2008 which
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (18 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
clarified that the restrain order(s) passed in suo moto petition was
against the building activities and not against the JDA to take
necessary steps to develop the area. Thereafter, due to mushroom
growth of PRN scheme in a haphazard manner, the government
introduced a policy for allotment of government land to the
persons who are already in possession of the land and the amount
collected from such allotment by the JDA was to be used for
development of PRN Scheme. This move of the government was
again challenged in the case of Sugan Singh (supra) by the
allottees of PRN Scheme who contended that this exercise of the
government was nothing but regularization of encroachment by
land grabbers. However, the Court refused to interfere in the
policy decision of the government but granted relief to those
allottees who had deposited the due amount in pursuance of the
draw of lottery. It was in this context that the condition F was
imposed, so as to ensure that the restrain orders remain effective
and that planned development of PRN Scheme can take place.
12. Learned counsels for the JDA have also highlighted that till
date about 62,454 lease deed/pattas have been issued by the JDA
in PRN Scheme which has generated a revenue of about Rs.
162165.77 lakhs. It is contended that the lease deed/pattas on
the other plots have not been issued for a variety of reasons, such
as plot/construction being located in facility area; in close
proximity to high tension line; dispute between khatedars and
housing societies; overlapping and multiplicity of different plans;
commercial activities being carried out at residential plots;
multiple society pattas of same plot; construction on public road
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (19 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
etc. Learned counsels for the JDA contends that if the present
misc. application is allowed and electricity connections are
released to any one and everyone, no one will cure the
deficiencies pointed out and apply for lease-deed/patta thereby
affecting not only the revenue to the tune of approximately Rs.
456 crores, but also the planned development of the PRN scheme
as directed by both Division Bench & Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
13. Learned counsels for the JDA further submits that the
petitioners can always get the deficiencies cured and thereafter
apply for lease deed/patta and get the electricity connection in
accordance with law. So far as the applicant-JVVNL is concerned, it
is contended that the misuse or theft of electricity cannot be a
ground to review/modify the order dated 05.07.2013, which has
attained finality, as the Discom should ensure that strict action is
taken against anyone involved in theft of electricity as the
Electricity Act, 2003, which is a self-contained code, provides
them with ample powers to penalize and prosecute the offences
contained therein.
14. Answering the query of this Court, learned counsel for the
JDA also filed an affidavit to clarify that the Law Secretary for the
State of Rajasthan or Director (Law) of JDA did not participate in
the meeting held on 03.05.2023, presided over by the Chief
Secretary for the State of Rajasthan, nor did they tender any
opinion in writing. However, it is clarified that the affidavit was
filed without prejudice to the stand of the State Government or
that of JDA taken in the meeting conducted on 03.05.2023.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (20 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
ANALYSIS
15. Heard the arguments advanced by all the sides, scanned the
record, and considered the judgments cited at Bar.
16. It is noted that judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated
05.07.2013, of which modification/review is sought, has attained
finality since the same was never appealed. Before proceedings to
the merits of the case, it is important to note that the lis in
question arises out of misc. application seeking modification in
order dated 05.07.2013 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court. While entertaining such application, this Court does not sit
in appeal over the decision of Co-ordinate Bench. Regardless of
the consensus of the parties, this Court can only interfere with the
order of Co-ordinate Bench of equal strength when there is an ex-
facie manifest and apparent error leading to grave injustice. The
misc. application seeking modification or review cannot be an
appeal in disguise to substitute the view of the Court.
17. In this background, it is also important to note that the
entire controversy regarding the PRN Scheme, which has had a
chequered and troublesome history, was considered not only by
the Co-ordinate Bench, but also by the Division Bench of this
Court in Suo Moto vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 6709/2002) and only thereafter consistent orders were passed
to ensure planned development of the PRN scheme. The pith and
substance of the orders in suo moto proceedings in D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 6709/2002 as well as the judgment of Sugan Singh
(supra) dated 05.07.2013 is to ensure the planned development
of PRN Scheme. On that aspect, this Court, not being the Court of
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (21 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
Appeal, cannot diverge with the view taken by the Co-ordinate
Bench in the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated
05.07.2013.
18. With that being the case, what remains to be determined is
whether allowing this misc. application along with other connected
writ petitions and relaxing the condition imposed vide condition F
would go against the tenet of planned development of PRN
scheme.
19. Coming first to the misc. application filed by the applicant-
JVVNL. The applicant-JVVNL had initially accepted the judgment of
Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 and had accordingly
passed restraint orders dated 22.12.2014 and 24.12.2014. The
said restraint orders are reproduced as under:
jktLFkku ljdkj
uxjh; fodkl foHkkx
Øekad %i-6¼15½ukfofo@3@87 ikVZ t;iqj fnukad%& 22-12-2014
v/;{k ,oa izcU/k funs"kd]
t;iqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fy- t;iqjA
fo'k;%& i`Fkohjkt uxj ;kstuk {ks= esa fo|qr dusD"ku tkjh fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaA
egksn;]
mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 2740@06@ lqxu flag
cuke jkT; ljdkj ,oa vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 05-07-13 ds Øe esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk fnukad 30-
09-14- dks ;kstuk {ks= esa Hkwfe vkoaVu dh izfØ;k fu/kkZfjr dh tk pqdh gSA ftlds Øe esa t;iqj fodkl
izkf/kdkj.k t;iqj }kjk Hkwfe fu;eu f"kfoj yxk;s tkdj {ks=okfl;ksa ds iV~Vk&foys[k ¼yht MhM½ tkjh
fd;s tk jgs gSaA
vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 05-07-13- dh vuqikyuk esa iwoZ foHkkxh;
vkns"k i-6¼15½ukfofo@3@87 ikVZ t;iqj fnukad 05-05-12- dks vf/kØfer djrs gq, fu.kZ; fuy;k x;k gS
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (22 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
fd ftu Hkw[k.Mksa esa i`Fohjkt uxjh; iV~Vk&foyks[k ¼yht MhM½ tkjh gks tkrs gSa] mudh fu;ekuqlkj
fo|qr dusD"ku fn;k tk ldrk gSA
vuqikyuk lqfuf"pr dh tkosA
vkKk ls]
¼jktsUnz flag "ks[kkor½
la;qDr "kklu lfpo&r`rh;
izfrfyfi% fuEufyf[kr dks vko";d dk;Zokgh gsrq lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gS&
1- vk;qDr] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj
2- jf{kr i=koyhA
Ø- tsihMh@v/kh-v-¼ok-½@lh&1@,Q-4¼210½ikVZ&19@izs- fnukad%& 24-12-2014
vkns"k
fo'k; %& i`Fohjktuxj ;kstuk {ks= esa u;s fo|qr dusD"ku tkjh fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaA
Jheku izeq[k "kklu lfpo] uxjh; fodkl] vkoklu ,oa Lok;Rr "kklu foHkx] jktLFkku ljdkj]
t;iqj ds i= Øekad i 6¼15½ufofo@3@08 ikVZ t;iqj fnukad 05-05-2013- dh vuqikyuk esa bl
dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh vkns"k la- 714 fnukad 10-05-2012- ¼tsihvkj 5&648½ }kjk t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k
dh t;iqj&vtesj jksM+ ds mRrjh o nf{k.kh Hkkx esa vkoklu e.My dh ekuljksoj ;kstuk ds vkxs o`gn~
vkoklh; i`Fohjkt uxj ;kstuk esa uohu fo|qr laca/k tkjh djus ij vfxze vkns"k rd izfrcU/k ykxw
fd;k x;k FkkA
Jheku lqa;qDr "kklu lfpo&r`rh;] uxjh; fodkl foHkkx] jktLFkku ljdkj t;iqj us vius i=
Øekad Ik 6¼15½ufofo@3@87 ikVZ t;iqj fnukad 22-12-2014- }kjk lwfpr fd;k gS fd ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 05-07-2013 dh vuqikyuk esa iwoZ foHkkxh; vkns"k Ik
6¼15½@ufofo@3@87 ikVZ t;iqj fnukad 05-05-2012- dks vf/kØfer djrs gq, fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd ftu
Hkw[k.Mksa esa i`Fohjkt uxj esa iV~Vk foys[k ¼yht MhM½ tkjh gks tkrs gSa] mudks fu;ekuqlkj fo|qr
dusD"ku fn;k tk ldrk gSA
bl laca/k esa funsZ"kkuqlkj i`Fohjktuxj ;kstuk {ks= esa ftu Hkw[k.Mksa esa iV~Vk foys[k ¼yht MhM½
tkjh gks tkrs gSa] mu vkosndksa ds fo|qr dusD"ku fu;ekuqlkj fn;s tk ldrs gSaA
lHkh lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh bldh ikyuk rqjUr izHkko ls lqfuf"pr djsaxsA
vkKk ls
¼,-ds-flag½
v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark ¼okf.kT;½
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (23 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
It is also noteworthy that the applicant-JVVNL had once previously
moved an application seeking identical relief in 2016, but the
same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 04.04.2017
in S.B. Writ Misc. Application No. 338/2016. Thereafter, the
present misc. application was filed in the year 2019 seeking
modification of order dated 05.07.2013, i.e. with a substantial
delay of about six years. No sufficient and/or satisfactory
explanation was furnished for this inordinate delay. Surprisingly,
when different instrumentalities of the State were at cross, the
applicant-JVVNL even filed a vague application (IA No. 1/2022) for
withdrawal of the misc. application altogether as the State
Government decided 'not to press the application at this stage'.
20. In the opinion of this Court, the misc. application filed by the
applicant-JVVNL deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay
& laches, acquiescence and estoppel alone, especially considering
the office orders issued in 2014. Even on merits, it is observed
that the applicant-JVVNL has sought review/modification on the
ground of workability and operational difficulty and the
review/modification is not sought strictly on merits.
Review/modification on ground of operational difficulty, that too
after a delay of six years, does not warrant consideration in the
opinion of this Court, especially considering that the applicant is
empowered under the Electricity Act, 2003 to take precautionary
and punitive action against anyone who is engaged in
unauthorized use of electricity.
21. The primary grievance of both the applicant-JVVNL and the
petitioners is against the condition F of the judgment of Sugan
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (24 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2023. It is important to emphasize that
condition F in judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated
05.07.2013 should not be read in isolation and has to be read
together with other directions and observations made therein. The
directions issued have been quoted above (supra), but it is
deemed necessary to reproduce the following extract from
judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 as well:
"In the instant case, large developments has taken
place. The demolition of thousand houses may not
yield any result more so when the area in dispute is to
be developed for residential purpose with other
developments required for it. The impugned order
makes a reference of demolition of construction and
rehabilitation of those persons which otherwise
obstruct development of roads etc. Thus, the effort of
the State Government is not to compromise with the
planned development, rather to maintain it. A balanced
decision has been taken by the respondents and
judicial review in such matters is very narrow. The
interim order of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal
Corporation, Jaipur v. Lekhraj Soni (supra) restricts
regularisation or construction made in violation of
master plan. The allotment by invoking Rules of 1974
is not barred.
It is no doubt unfortunate that the matter in reference
to Prithvi Raj Nagar scheme remain under litigation for
quite long time. The first litigation was to challenge
acquisition followed by suo motu petition at the stage
of de-acquiring the land in dispute. The ideal situation
would have been if the suo motu petition could have
been decided at the earliest followed by proper planned
development of the area. If any development took
place after the interim order of this court, as
alleged, the government was expected to take a
proper view for them or atleast impose penal
charges. The material on record shows that many plot
holders did not raise construction thus they are law
abiding persons. In view of the above, while
concluding the judgment, proper directions would
be issued by this court.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (25 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
The situation of the case can be viewed from the angle
that if a direction is given to demolish thousands of
building with a view to develop residential colony
again, the end result would be nothing but wastage of
energy and material. However, at the same time,
planned development of the area cannot be
sacrificed in the hands of encroachers and land
grabbers and those who have raised illegal
constructions.
In view of above, if impugned order is allowed to
stand, respondents would be under an obligation
to develop the area as per plan and not by
compromising in the hands of encroachers or
those who have raised illegal constructions. For
planned development of roads, facility area etc, if
it is having obstruction due to encroachments or
constructions, appropriately it should be
removed. The government would however be at
liberty to rehabilitate those persons. The first
argument thus cannot be accepted entirely but in part
for which proper directions would be given in the
concluding para of the judgment.
(emphasis supplied)"
Further, the relevant portion of suo moto proceedings order dated
29.10.2010 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6709/2002 is reproduced
as under:
"At this stage, learned counsel Mr. K.K. Mehrishi
representing few agriculturists and land holders,
submitted that their valuable right are infringed on the
acquisition of land or on a decision to withdraw the
Notification for de-acquisition. At the very outset, he
admitted that all those to whom he is representing
fought their battle against the acquisition and lost
therein up to the Apex Court. In the aforesaid
circumstances, it was admitted by the counsel that so
far as the acquisition is concerned, that has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court against them. It
was further admitted that larger chunk of land belongs
to them was sold to Housing Co-operative Societies.
He was asked as to whether any Housing Co-
operative Society can have better right than the
land holders. He fairly conceded on that and the
transfer of land is otherwise restricted after
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (26 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
issuance of Notification under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act and if any transaction is made,
then it is to be treated as void.
--
The outcome of the aforesaid is that land remains acquired with the affirmation of acquisition proceedings by the Hon'ble Apex Court and accordingly land vest in the State. The State would accordingly carry out planned development of the area strictly in conformity to the provision of law and till then maintain restrained order mentioned in this judgment.
(emphasis supplied)"
A combined reading of the directions along with the reasoning of the Court would reveal that the reason behind these directions was to ensure planned development of the PRN scheme; to penalize those who flouted restrain orders and raised construction; and to ensure that more encroachers do not take advantage of the vacant plots and raise illegal construction without allotment of plot. It also remains undisputed that the directions issued were for the benefit of public at large. Since these directions were in furtherance of the planned development of PRN Scheme, this Court, not being the Court of Appeal, cannot interfere with the same.
22. Coming to the various judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL, it is noted that the common rationale in all the judgments was a dispute between tenant and landlord of the property and the word occupier was also interpreted accordingly. Whereas, in the present case, the directions to not release electricity connection without proper allotment of plot were issued while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31410] (27 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019] planned development of PRN scheme. It is a well settled proposition of law that a Co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another Co- ordinate Bench of the same strength. Therefore, without commenting on veracity of directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench, the grievance against the said directions can only be entertained by Appellate Court and not by this Court. Furthermore, all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL are on the interpretation of the word 'occupier', whereas Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 encompasses not only 'occupier', but also 'premises' as supply of electricity can only be to premise entitled to receive supply of electricity. In the case at hand, enough reasons (plot/construction being located in facility area; in close proximity to high tension line; dispute between khatedars and housing societies; overlapping and multiplicity of different plans; commercial activities being carried out at residential plots, multiple society pattas of same plot; construction on public road etc.) have been provided by JDA for not issuing lease deed/patta and these reasons would also make the premises unentitled to receive supply of electricity. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL along with learned counsels for the petitioners are also not correct in contending that the obligation cast upon the Discom by virtue of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is absolute. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the recent case of K.C. Ninan (supra), though in the context of pending dues, has specifically observed that the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31410] (28 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019] 2003 is not absolute. Therefore, the relied upon judgments, being distinguishable, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
23. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 and no interference is called for in the misc. application filed on behalf of the applicant-JVVNL.
24. The writ petitions filed by the purported occupiers of plots in PRN scheme, apart from the reasons already mentioned above, also calls for no interference on account of concealment and suppression of material facts. It is a well settled principle of law that one who seeks equity must also do equity. It is equally well settled that one who seeks to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts must come with not just clean hands, but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective, as these are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. A litigant is bound to make full and true disclosure of facts. Reliance in this regard can be placed on a catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, including Tilokchand H.B. Motichand and Ors. vs. Munshi and Anr.: (1969) 1 SCC 110; A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam and Anr.: (2012) 6 SCC 430; Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma: (1995) 1 SCC 421; Abhyudya Sanstha vs. Union of India and Ors.: (2011) 6 SCC 145; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Anr.:
(2011) 7 SCC 639; Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and Anr.: (2011) 3 SCC 287; Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31410] (29 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019] and Ors.: (2013) 2 SCC 398; K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.: (2008) 12 SCC 481; Amar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.: (2011) 7 SCC 69; Ramjas Foundation and Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.: (2010) 14 SCC 38; Anil Bansal vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal and Ors.: (2005) 9 SCC 368; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.: (1994) 1 SCC 1; A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Government of A.P. and Ors.: (2007) 4 SCC 221; and K. Jayaram and Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors.: (2022) 12 SCC
815.
25. The petitioners have concealed the fact that they were involved in theft/unauthorized use of electricity and the same was only revealed upon an inspection done by the Superintending Engineer (Vigilance) of applicant-JVVNL on 24.05.2023. The details of the petitioners engaged in the theft/unauthorized use of electricity are reproduced as under:
Sr. Case Name of Address Electricit VCR No. House Occupie Connect How Remarks No No. Petitioner y and Date Constr d/vacan ed Load Petition . Connecti (if Filled) ucted t er using on exist, or not electrici if yes, ty Meter No. 1 C.W. PUSHPA 31, NO 105823/ YES OCCUPI 110 DIRECT 6886/2 SHARMA TRUPATI 24-05- ED WATT. THEFT 019 WIFE OF VIHAR, 2023(TH SHRI BABU PATRAKAR EFT) LAL SHARMA ROAD, GOLYAWA S, MANSARO VER, JAIPUR 2 C.W. MAHENDRA 70, NO NO TEEN OCCUPI 430 BY 8744/2 SHARMA SON PARSHURA SHED ED WATT. SOLAR 019 OF SHRI M NAGAR, PLANT LALARAM PATRAKAR OF SHARMA ROAD, PLOT GOLYAWA NO. 76 S, MANSARO VER, JAIPUR 3 C.W. KAILASH 24, NO NO NO VACAN - -
11943/ CHAND PARSHURA T
2019 SHARMA SON M NAGAR,
OF LATE SHRI PATRAKAR
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (30 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
ROOPNARAYA ROAD,
N GOLYAAW
AS,
MANSARO
VER,
JAIPUR
4 C.W. SMT. 36, BALAJI NO NO NO VACAN - -
6762/2 SUSHILA VIHAR, T
019 DEVI WIFE GOLYAWA
OF SHRI S,
SHANKAR MANSARO
LAL SHARMA VER,
JAIPUR
5 C.W. MOHAN LAL 79, NO 105833/ YES OCCUPI 150 DIRECT
5189/2 SHARMA SON TRUPATI 24-05- ED WATT. THEFT
019 OF SHRI VIHAR, 2023(TH
RAMESHWAR GOLYAWA EFT)
PRASAD S,
SHARMA MANSARO
VER,
JAIPUR
6 C.W. SHAKUNTALA 02, SHRI NO NO NO VACAN - -
680/20 SHARMA W/O BALAJI T
19 SHRI VIHAR,
RAVIKANT GOLYAWA
SHARMA D/O S,
SHRI MANSARO
LALARAM VER,
SHARMA JAIPUR
7 C.W. BABU LAL 47, NO 105828/ YES OCCUPI MISUSE BY
6878/2 SHARMA SON PARSHURA 24-05- ED LOAD ELECTR
019 OF SHRI M NAGAR, 2023(MI 0.35 KW, IC
LALARAM PATRAKAR SUSE) TOTAL CONNE
SHARMA ROAD, LOAD CTION
GOLYAWA 1.48 KW OF
S, PLOT
MANSARO NO. 54
VER, A/C
JAIPUR NO.
1553/0
538
8 C.W. GAURI 19, NO NO YES OCCUPI 897 SUPPLY
8754/2 SHANKAR PARSHURA ED WATT. NOT
019 SHARMA SON M NAGAR, CONNE
OF SHRI PATRAKAR CTED
JAGANNATH ROAD,
SHARMA GOLYAWA
S,
MANSARV
OVER,
JAIPUR
9 C.W. ASHISH 100, NO 105835/ YES OCCUPI MISUSE BY
11856/ SHARMA SON TRUPATI 24-05- ED LOAD ELECTR
2019 OF SHRI VIHAR, 2023(MI 1.29 KW, IC
SATYANARAY GOLYAWA SUSE) TOTAL CONNE
AN SHARMA S, LOAD CTION
MANSARO 2.12 KW OF
VER, PLOT
JAIPUR NO.
161,
MANSA
ROVER,
MAHAV
EER
NAGAR,
A/C
NO.
1553/0
439
10 C.W. SMT. 72, SHIV NO NO YES OCCUPI 410 SUPPLY
9700/2 SANTOSH VATIKA, ED WATT. NOT
019 DEVI MANGYAW CONNE
SHARMA AS, CTED
WIFE OF MANSARO
SHRI NIRMAL VER,
KUMAR JAIPUR
SHARMA
11 C.W. LALARAM 51-B, NO NO YES LOCKED
6877/201 SHARMA S/O GIRRAJ
9 LATE SHRI NAGAR,
KISHAN GOLYAWAS
SHARMA ,
MANSARO
VER,
JAIPUR
12 C.W. HARISH 2, MAA NO NO YES OCCUPI 310 WATT. SUPPLY
10080/20 KUMAR VAISHNO ED NOT
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:31410] (31 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019]
21 SHRIVASTAV NAGAR, CONNE
S/O SHRI LALPURA CTED
GOVIND ROAD,
NARAYAN GANDHI
PATH WEST,
JAIPUR
13 C.W. BEENA 22, MAA NO 105811/24- YES OCCUPI 5.45 KW DIRECT
10045/20 CHOUDHARY VAISHNO 05- ED THEFT
21 WIFE OF SHRI DEVI 2023(THE
JEET SINGH NAGAR, FT)
PANCHYAL
AWA,
JAIPUR
14 C.W. LOKESH 73-A, PURVI NO 105838/24 YES OCCUPI 270 WATT. DIRECT As intimated
14667/20 KUMAR SON BHAG, -05- ED THEFT by Tenant
20 OF SHRI HANUMAN 2023(THE Sh. Mukesh
JAGANNATH VIHAR, FT) Rana at Site
PRASAD KHEJRO KA That this
VERMA BAS, premises was
BAMAN KI purchased by
THADI,
Sh. Goga
MANSARO
Ram S/o
VER,
JAIPUR Laddu Ram
Rana from
Sh. Lokesh
Kumar
15 C.W. LALARAM 69-70, SHRI NO 105836/24 Yes Occupie Misuse Solar System
4836/202 SHARMA S/O BALAJI -05- d Load also installed
1 LATE SHRI VIHAR, 2023(MIS 5.04 KW
KISHAN JAIPUR USE) Total
SHARMA Load
5.04 KW
26. During the course of arguments, the erstwhile counsel for JVVNL, Mr. Jayanti Sahaya Gaur, appeared before this Court and submitted his grievance that he was compelled to give NOC in the matter, solely on account of certain legal opinions put fourth by him during the sustenance of the matter before the Court. It was further submitted that he was thereafter removed from the panel as well. A document to this effect has also been filed by Mr. Jayanti Sahaya Gaur. However, this Court, while hearing misc.
application, can't consider or comment upon the grievance of the erstwhile panel counsel. However, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to Mr. Jayanti Sahaya Gaur to raise his grievance before the Bar Council and before the learned Advocate General. Further, Mr. Jayanti Sahaya Gaur may also participate in the sou moto proceedings pending before Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan High Court Bar Association vs. Union of India (D.B. Civil (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:46 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:31410] (32 of 32) [WMAP-115/2019] Writ Petition No. 1419/2023), wherein the issue of arbitrary appointment/removal of panel/government counsels is pending. RESULT
27. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the firm view that if the condition F of the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) were to be relaxed, the same would be against the tenet of planned development of PRN scheme, as directed by Co- ordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court, especially since it remains undisputed that the directions were passed in the larger public interest.
27. Accordingly, the misc. application is dismissed both on merits and on delay & laches, acquiescence and estoppel.
28. Similarly, the writ petitions are also dismissed, both on merits and on account of concealment of material facts.
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J ANIL SHARMA /95-112 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:09:46 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)