Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. There is a third prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to grant/issue new electricity connection to the petitioner forthwith on her application dated 07.03.2020, genuineness of which we need to consider in the light of facts admitted, and the stand taken on behalf of the NBPDCL. This is to be noted that when this case was taken up on 23.12.2021, this Court had noticed the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, referring to Rule 4(9) of the Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020, which states that a licensee can not demand more documents of the proof than mandatorily required under the said provision. The Court had asked the respondents NBPDCL, to deal with this aspect of Patna High Court CWJC No.17983 of 2021 dt.07-02-2022 the matter, while filing their counter affidavit.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the NBPDCL. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that the expression "Occupier" has been defined under Rule 2(1)(k) of the Electricity (Rights of Consumers) Rules, 2020, ('the Rules' for short) to mean owner/tenant/person in occupation of the premises where electricity is used or proposed to be used. Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, casts a duty on every distribution company/licensee, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises to give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of "application" requiring such supply. In the explanation to Section 43, "application" has been defined as "application complete in all respects in the appropriate form", as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.

12. Further, relying on Clause 4.13 (a) of Bihar Electricity Supply Code, it is the case of the NBPDCL that a consumer is under obligation to furnish documents mentioned therein with the application for giving electricity connection. It is the case of the NBPDCL that the petitioner has so far not been able to establish her ownership or her rightful or lawful occupancy in respect of premises in question.

13. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it cannot be disputed that the petitioner is occupying the premises in question as to the Trial Court, in its judgement in Title Suit No. 371 of 2011, has directed the petitioner to vacate the suit property. He contends that Sita Devi had executed the sale deed in the petitioner's favour based on which she acquired title and possession over the said premises. Secondly, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the petitioner's husband was adopted as a son by late Bhola Prasad, the late husband of the said Sita Devi and thus, the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of late Sita Devi.

15. From the judgment in the title suit, it appears that the contesting defendants had set up both the stands in their defence. According to them, the petitioner was in occupation of the premises in question based on the sale deed executed in her favour and, the petitioner's husband was adopted as their son Patna High Court CWJC No.17983 of 2021 dt.07-02-2022 by Bhola Prasad and Sita Devi.

16. Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the NBPDCL, per contra, would argue that the petitioner cannot be said to be a lawful occupier of the premises in question. He contends that the petitioner has failed to furnish proof of ownership or occupancy over the premises for which a new connection is being sought. Referring to provisions under the Electricity Act, the Rules and the Supply Code, he has submitted that an occupier cannot include unlawful occupier. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not annexed any receipt showing deposit of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) in the month of January 2020, as is being claimed in the writ petition. He has thus submitted that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case requiring this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus requiring NBPDCL to provide electricity connection for the premises in question, in the petitioner's name.