MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. TRIMBAKRAO NARAYAN PHULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very interesting but important question of interpretation of section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is mainly the subject matter of this appeal. The trial Court has given a finding that the notice under section 24(1) of the aforesaid act printed on the energy bill by the M.S.E.B. appellant is illegal, null and void. With this finding the trial Court restrained the appellant board perpetually from serving a notice under section 24(1) of the Indian electricity Act on the energy bills to the consumers in the Maharashtra State. Both these finding are inter-related and based on the interpretation of section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act.

(2.) A dispute arose on account of the disconnection of electric supply through two meters installed in the house of respondent No. 1 Trimbakrao, who is dead. Respondent No. 2 Shesharao More is said to be the tenant residing in the house of Trimbak and was using the electric supply to the portion of his house through Electric Meter No. 9828. Late Trimbak had applied on 30th December, 1972. For grant of electric connection to his premises. On 28th October, 1973 he was sanctioned the electric connection by the appellant Board. For the arrears of the month of December, 1977, two bills were issued by the appellant Board to deceased Trimbek. The bills were dated 3rd January, 1979. The amount of the bill was specified in both the bills and it was mentioned thereon that the amount of the energy bills should be paid or before 23rd January, 1979. It is in evidence that the necessary payment mentioned in the two bill were paid in the account of the appellant in the Bank on 23rd January, 1979. The bank also passed receipt about the payment. However, it appear that inadvertently amount of both the bills credited was in one account and the bill in respect of Meter No. 9829 remained to be endorsed showing no-payment. Naturally it showed default in respect of that bill. In due process of time when the employees of the appellant Board found that the bill in respect of Meter No. 9828 has not been paid, a disconnection was effected by the Lineman of the appellant Board on 15th January, 1979. It appears that on behalf of the respondents. It was brought to the notice of the linemen that they are not in arrears of energy bill charges since they nave paid the entire payment of the energy charges and the disconnection should not be made. But all the requests of the respondents were turned down by the lineman and he proceeded to disconnect the electric supply to the respondents. He appears to have removed the kit-cat, a device which connects the supply of energy to the premise. The respondents particularly respondent No. 2 was more agitated in the matter since according to him it was illegal act on the part of the appellant Board to disconnect his electric supply even though the necessary payment was made, therefore, contacted the local officers of the M.S.E.B. at Nanded and also made correspondence with the Board. Thereafter on 12th March, 1979, his electric supply was restored. The respondents and the consumers were still agitated on account of that act of disconnection and again Indulged in representations and correspondence with the appellant Board. Ultimately on 18th April, 1979, a legal notice was served on the appellant Board through an Advocate and the suit came to be filed before the trial Court at Nanded.

(3.) Initially late Trimbak, the house-owner and Sheshrao Bapurao Morey, a tenant in the house of Trimbak were the plaintiffs. Later on they made an application under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to convert the suit into a representative suit since they felt that similar actions of disconnection may arise in cases of other consumers and they also may be facing same harassment and difficulties. With this plausible object they proceeded to convert the suit into a representative suit. The necessary permission was granted by the trial Court and suit was converted with the permission of the Court as a representative suit. A public notice was issued of the suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the C.P.C. and thereafter the plaintiff No. 3 Dagadu Jadhav was impleaded as plaintiff No. 3.