PUNEET PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Vs. RAWAT HOSTIERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER:

(2.) THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge refusing interim injunction to the petitioner against the alleged disconnection of electricity connection. The petitioners claim to be the tenant of Respondent No. I in A-7, Wazirpur Group Industrial Area. They further claim that there was an agreement between them and Respondent No. I whereby out of 100 K.Ws. sanctioned load of electricity 30 K.Ws. were granted to them. Respondent I himself is licencee and is permitted under the licence to carry on the business of manufacture of hosiery. It is an admitted fact that in March, 1982 that licence came to an end. The petitioners are running the business of the manufacture of plastic goods in the premises under their control. It is an admitted position that there is no municipal licence held by the petitioner for that purpose. The reason for filing the suit, according to the petitioners arose because Respondent I wrote to the DESU, to disconnect the electricity supply of the petitioners, as he wanted to carry out some repairs. Apprehending that acting on this letter the DESU might take an action to disconnect the electricity supply the suit was filed requesting for an interim injunction. It. was refused by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioners are not a registered consumer of the DESU and there is no privity of contract between the petititioners and the DESU. The learned Judge further found that the petitioners are carrying on the business of manufacture of plastic goods without any licence and to such a person the discretionary relief of injunction should not be allowed by the Court. No written statement was filed by the DESU in the trial Court. However, while admitting the Civil Revision this Court issued the notices to DESU, and called upon them to produce the relevant material in this respect. It is seen from the records produced by them that as early as 1-2-.1980 the DESU had served a notice on Respondent I of number of illegalities in relation to the electricity meters and the malpractices including that of theft and fraudulent use of electricity. On 27-11-81 again the DESU wrote to Respondent No. 1 informing him that on inspection it was found that in spite of the sanctioned load of 100 K.Ws. he was using the load of 38 K.Ws. Thus he was using excess load and misusing the sanctioned electricity load given to him. In face of these documents it is hard to believe that it was only because of the landlord's letter that DESU was intending to take action of disconnection. The learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice two resolutions of DESU, one of 6th Oct. 1977 and the other of Oct, 16, 1978 wherein it is stated that in case of misuse additional surcharge be demanded but there should not be any disconnection. The counsel for the DESU has produced a further office order dt. 7th July, 1980 wherein it is stated that in supersession of the earlier orders higher tarriff should be levied, as directed there and that is in addition and without prejudice to the right of the DESU, to take action under the Delhi Electricity Consumers Orders and the Rules and Regulations thereunder. It is claimed that by this Order, 1977 and 1978 orders are superseded. It may not be necessary to look to the last order for the simple reason that if any grievance (regarding the disconnection) in the light of the said resolutions can be made it can only be made by the registered consumer if an action is taken against him. The record clearly shows the DESU intended to take action for the excess use/misuse and alleged theft of the electricity. As it is, counsel for the respondents inform that DESU has now taken the necessary action and the entire electric supply including that of Respondent I has been disconnected. As stated by the learned Judge it is correct that there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the DESU and, therefore, discretionary relief of injunction cannot be granted.