SANJAY DHINGRA Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Shri C. S. Jasthey was running a shop styled as "k. Olympic Steel Furnitures" as a tenant in part of Harisingh Building bearing Nos. 644 and 645, Marhatal, Jabalpur. An electric meter was installed in those premises bearing No. 42-23-51-09-052649-9/052649 for supply of electricity. Shri C. S. Jasthey vacated those premises but did not pay the charges for consuming electricity for the month of October, 1988 and December, 1988 amounting to Rs. 1271. 00. For this reason, the service connection has been disconnected by the respondent, viz. , M. P. Electricity Board. The petitioners claim that on termination of the tenancy of Shri C. S. Jasthey, they entered into an agreement with the landlord on 28-5-1988 and became its tenants. They started the actual business from these premises from 1-4-1989. It is worth mentioning that the alleged agreement between the petitioners and the landlord on 28-5-1988 has not been filed. On 22-2-1989, the petitioners applied for electric connection and for installation of a meter for that purpose in their names. In response to this application by the petitioners, the respondent addressed a communication to the petitioners, vide Annexure P/1. By this, the dues outstanding against the earlier meter installed in those premises was required to be cleared by making payment of the amount due under that bill before the application for installation of another meter in petitioners' name could be considered. The petitioners then raised objection to the demand raised vide Annexure P/1. These objections are contained in Annexure P/2. Again, on 7-4-1989, vide Annexure P/5, the petitioners made a grievance to the Divisional Engineer, M. P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur of the delay in the matter and in not installing the meter and in not commencing supply of the electricity. Petitioners have, therefore, claimed in this petition a direction to the respondent, the Electricity Board, to instal a meter in those premises and to commence supply of electricity through that meter. During the pendency of this petition, an interim writ was issued on 22-5-1989 whereby this Court directed that on payment by the petitioners of the entire dues towards electricity consumed within 7 days from the date of that order, the Board shall restore the electric supply within 15 days. It was noted in the order-sheet dated 8-6-1989 that the petitioners did not pay those dues and, therefore, the service connection could not be restored. On 28-6-1989, this Court directed the parties to file affidavits showing the date on which the petitioners actually occupied the premises. Those affidavits have not been filed. The counsel for the parties were then heard on merits of the case.

(2.) THE moot question to be decided is whether the petitioners are entitled to the restoration of service connection either through the old meter or through another meter to be newly installed without payment of outstanding dues for the electricity consumed as indicated by the old meter in the same premises. Section 24 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act No. 9 of 1910) permits the licensee to cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supplyline or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him. Before, however, such supply is disconnected, a notice of not less than seven clear days in writing to such person is necessary. Such disconnection shall not deprive the licensee of his right to recover such charge by suit. Supply of electricity so discontinued may not be restored until such charge or other sum together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply are paid. The respondent Board, in the present case, found that certain amount on account of consumption of electricity through the meter installed in the premises in question remained unpaid. The supply was, therefore, discontinued. The amount has still not been paid. It is not the case of the petitioners that the amount is not due to the respondent Board for consumption of electricity. Therefore, so far as the electric supply through the old meter is concerned, the right of the Electricity Board to discontinue the supply is unquestionable. The supply of electricity, therefore, has rightly been discontinued. The amount still remains unpaid and, therefore, the supply cannot be restored. This disconnection has to continue until the amount so due is paid. From the averments made in para 3 of the petition, it appears as if the petitioners want restoration of the electric supply to them. They state therein "that the petitioners after entering into the agreement dated 28-5-1989 with the landlord. . . . . . . . . . . . . have started the business from 1-4-1989 and previous to that the petitioners applied for the connection of the electricity to the respondent in a prescribed form dated 22-2-1989. . . . . . . . . . " This application is not sufficient to disclose as to what precisely the petitioners desired through that application. However, the aforesaid allegations indicate that the petitioners wanted "connection of the electricity" and this could not be done in view of provisions in Section 24 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act unless the outstanding dues are paid.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Board, drew the attention of the Court to condition 22-A of the General Conditions for Supply of Electrical Energy and Scale of Miscellaneous and General Charges. This condition reads as follows: