Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Arora vs B.S.E.S. Ypl on 30 May, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL ELECTRICITY COURT, EAST
DISTT., KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PETITION NO. 19/14
CASE I.D. NO. 02402R0125362014
ASHOK KUMAR ARORA .....PLAINTIFF
VS.
B.S.E.S. YPL .....DEFENDANT
ORDER (30.05.2014)
By this order, I have to decide pending application of plaintiff filed u/o 39 rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC which was filed alongwith main suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.
The main facts pertaining to this application are to the effect that plaintiff is the consumer of defendant and was having one electricity meter connection bearing no. 1260152127, meter no. 13954596 for non domestic purpose installed at premises no. G-3, Khasra No. 17/21, Pole 2272, Rajeev Nagar, Mandoli, Delhi-93 (in short called as suit property hereinafter); that plaintiff was regularly paying monthly bills of above said meter; that on 19.08.2013, the officials of the defendant came to the suit property and took away the burnt meter, earlier burnt due to sparking on 17.08.2013, and also prepared field service execution job slip and handed over to the employee of the plaintiff namely Sh. Babu Lal; that officials of the defendant also installed a new meter no. 11433599 in place of burnt meter at the suit P.NO. 19/14, ASHOK KUMAR ARORA VS. BSES (YPL) PAGE 1 of 6 2 property; that the officials of the defendant company also served a show cause notice dated 19.08.2013 to the employee of the plaintiff; that in the month of March 2014, to the surprise of the plaintiff, an impugned theft bill to the extent of Rs. 1,90,523/- (rupees one lac ninety thousand five hundred twenty three) was raised against the plaintiff; that on 15.03.2014, the officials of the defendant came to the suit property and took new meter also in arbitrarily and illegal manner, which had been installed by them earlier at the time of changing of burnt meter; that plaintiff was not liable to make payment of the impugned theft bill which has been arbitrarily raised against the plaintiff by the officials of defendant company; that plaintiff suffering great hardships due to removal of electricity connection at the suit property; that a prima facie case lies in favour of the plaintiff; that he would suffer great inconvenience if electricity connection is not restored at the suit property before the final disposal of this case on merits; that balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff. In the end, a prayer has been made for directing the defendant company and its officials to forthwith restore electricity connection at the suit property as per rules.
During course of arguments on this application earlier, ld. cl. for plaintiff had relied upon authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India namely Meena Chaudhary @ Dr. Meena P.N. Singh Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and others, 2013 (4) CLJ 111 (Supreme Court). While relying upon this authority, the main submission of ld. cl. for plaintiff was that the plaintiff should not be made liable to make any part payment of impugned theft bill to the defendant company in this matter and that plaintiff was entitled for restoration of electricity at his premises forthwith even without making any such part payment of the impugned theft bill to the defendant company.
Contentions of this application have been strongly opposed by the defendant company in its reply filed to it alongwith written statement (in P.NO. 19/14, ASHOK KUMAR ARORA VS. BSES (YPL) PAGE 2 of 6 3 short W.S.).
The main submissions on behalf of the defendant company in rebuttal to this application of plaintiff are to the effect, interalia, that plaintiff has filed the suit by suppressing material facts from this court; that he was found committing theft of electricity by way of meter tampering in this matter; that defendant had every legal right to disconnect electricity supply at the suit property in case of non payment of dues by the plaintiff; that the inspection was carried out at the suit property as per rules by the inspecting team of the defendant company; that the impugned theft bill in sum of Rs. 1,96,154/- (rupees one lac ninety six thousand one hundred fifty four), as per print date 28.04.2014, including late payment surcharge, as per record, has been rightly raised against the plaintiff; that no prime facie case lies in his favour; that no inconvenience would be suffered by the plaintiff for non payment of the impugned bill; that no balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff; that plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in the given facts and circumstances of this case. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss the application of the plaintiff.
I heard both sides on this application and perused the case file minutely including the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in MEENA CHAUDHARY'S CASE (Supra).
Before proceeding further, I refer to the provisions of Order 39 rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC which are to the following effect:
"ORDER XXXIX TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS
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 P.NO. 19/14, ASHOK KUMAR ARORA VS. BSES (YPL) PAGE 3 of 6 4 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.
2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach. - (1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.
(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit."
"S.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."
In my considered opinion, electricity is the basic need of every human being in the present day circumstances and hence a prima-facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff for having the facility of electricity at the suit property till final disposal of this case on merits. The plaintiff is likely to suffer great hardships, if electricity is not restored at the suit property at this stage and in this way, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable losses, if electricity P.NO. 19/14, ASHOK KUMAR ARORA VS. BSES (YPL) PAGE 4 of 6 5 remains disconnected at the suit property of the plaintiff till final disposal of this case on merits. However, the contentions of defendant company also can not be completely ignored even at this stage. The defendant company has reportedly raised a theft bill of substantial amount i.e. in sum of Rs. 1,96,154/- (rupees one lac ninety six thousand one hundred fifty four), as per print date 28.04.2014, including late payment surcharge, as per record. The plaintiff has reportedly not made any payment of the impugned theft bill to the defendant company so far.
In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of the above mentioned discussion, I allow the application of plaintiff U/o 39 rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and direct the defendant company alongwith its officials to restore electricity connection at the suit property reportedly passing through CRN No. 1260152127, subject to a condition that plaintiff shall deposit 70% (seventy percent) of the outstanding electricity dues of the defendant company within 30 ( thirty ) days from today and show the receipt of the payment of the same to this court on the next date of hearing. Such payment to be made by the plaintiff to the defendant company without any prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the sides to be decided later on by this court after inviting evidence from both the sides and further subject to adjustment of such amount in future as per law/rules, if need be. If any payment made earlier by the plaintiff, out of the above mentioned impugned theft bill, the same shall be adjusted as per rules. It is further made clear that after making of above mentioned payment within the given time, the plaintiff shall also complete the necessary commercial formalities, if need be, as per rules and at his own cost and responsibility before claiming restoration of electricity connection, as mentioned above. If the plaintiff fails to make such payment within 30 days from today, then the relief given in his favour by this order shall stand P.NO. 19/14, ASHOK KUMAR ARORA VS. BSES (YPL) PAGE 5 of 6 6 automatically cancelled by virtue of this order.
With due respect, MEENA CHAUDHARY'S CASE (Supra) is not found helpful to the plaintiff in this case qua imposing condition of part payment of impugned theft bill by plaintiff to defendant, because to the considered opinion of this court, the facts and circumstances of the instant case are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the above mentioned cited case. In MEENA CHAUDHARY'S CASE (Supra), the registered consumer was not willing for electricity supply at the premises in question whereas its occupier was interested in restoration of electricity at the premises in question and further, in my considered view, burning of meter was not involved in this cited case. On the other hand, in the instant case, the registered consumer as well as the user of electricity is the plaintiff himself, as per record, and the burning of electricity meter reportedly by the plaintiff was involved in the instant case. Hence, with due respect, to my considered view, the facts and circumstances of instant case are quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the above mentioned cited decision. Hence, with due respect, the cited authority does not favour the plaintiff at this stage so as to completely exempt him from making any part payment of impugned theft bill to the defendant before claiming restoration of electricity at the suit property.
Hence, the application of the plaintiff under discussion stands decided in view of the above order.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY ON 30th MAY 2014 ( DR. SHAHABUDDIN )
ASJ/ SPECIAL ELECTRICITY COURT
EAST DISTT./ KKD COURTS/DELHI
P.NO. 19/14, ASHOK KUMAR ARORA VS. BSES (YPL) PAGE 6 of 6
7
The authority of Hon'ble Supreme court given in the case i.e. Meena Chaudhary @ Dr. Meena P.N. Singh Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and others, 2013 (4) CLJ 111 (Supreme Court) P.NO. 19/14, ASHOK KUMAR ARORA VS. BSES (YPL) PAGE 7 of 6