ON THE DEATH OF PRIYOKUMAR SINGH HIS L. RS. KUMARI THOKCHOM HEMABATI DEVI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE predecessor -in -interest of the present petitioners, Priyokumar Singh, had approached this Court initially in its writ jurisdiction feeling aggrieved at the -withdrawal of electrical energy which he was enjoying since long. Priyokumar Singh had initially installed an Atta Mill in 1952. In 1967, he was given a licence to carry on the rice milling operation. Subsequently, in 1970, he was registered as a consumer of 20 H. P. A call was given in 1971 by the Director of Industries, Government of Manipur, to modernise the rice milling equipments, and Priyokumar Singh was one such person to respond to the call and he, by discarding conventional types of machineries, installed a modern rice mill. This modern type of mill needed 45 H. P. to run it properly. Prayer for additional 15 H. P. only was, however, granted and Priyokumar Singh deposited the necessary money in 1973. So the mill -owner got 35 H. P. in all. The Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Department, however, wrote to the Director of Industries on 11 -6 -75 that the existing load of 35 H. P. should be restricted only to the sanctioned Horse Power as per the valid licence. This communication was at the instruction of the Chief Minister, Government of Msnipur. Priyokumar Singh was given a licence on 20 -8 -75 for 45 H. P. and the Director of Industries wrote to the Superintending Engineer (Electricity) to allot power load of 45 H. P. The Assistant, Engineer, Central Sub -Division, was thereafter asked by the Executive Engineer to restore the load of 35 H. P. Another communication came from the Secretary, Electricity Department, to withdraw supply of 25 H. P. Something was said in this communication as to why the mill should be working in the night time against the orders issued in this regard. This time, the Minister, Power, had issued the instructions. So Priyokumar Singh was informed that out of the sanctioned 35 H. P., he would get only 25 H. P. This order was passed on 15 -11 -1975.

(2.) THE first round of litigation thereafter started and the petitioner approached this Court by way of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution which was registered as Civil Rule No. 84 of 1976. As this Article had been amended by 42nd Amendment Act in the mean time and as Section 21(4) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, (for short the Act), had provided for an alternative remedy, this Court ordered that the matter be either referred to an Electrical Inspector and decided by him or if the licensee or consumer so desires, determined by arbitration. The Electrical Inspector did not, however, give a final decision as he was stuck up with the question as to whether Clause 13 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply as mentioned in Appendix -A to the Manipur Electricity Supply Regulations did really empower the Government to direct disconnection of the supply for any "other reasons considered proper by the Government". As the consumer was left in lurch by the Electrical Inspector, he preferred an appeal to the Government as provided by Section 36(2) of the Act. This appeal has been rejected by Respondent No. 1.

(3.) ANOTHER attack closely related to the above question is on the ground that the licence granted to Praphulla Singh having expired on 31 -12 -80, Praphulla Singh has no right to enforce through this proceeding. Shri Nandakumar Singh has two answers to this objection. He has firstly submitted that in the present matter, the petitioners are not trying to enforce their right relating to the licence for milling, but are seeking to uphold their right as consumers of the electrical energy. We are referred to Clause 2 (a) of the aforesaid Terms and Conditions of Supply finding place in Appendix -A to the Manipur Electricity Supply Regulations which has defined the word "consumer" to include his heirs, assigns and legal representatives. He nextly contends that as the renewal application is pending which would be apparent from the communication dt. 26 -6 -82 (Annexure -A/57) of the Director of Industries to the Commissioner of Industries, the period of validity of Licence cannot be deemed to have expired, by virtue of the Explanation to Section 8(3) of the Rice -Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 for short the Rice -Milling Act. Though Shri Nilamani Singh has urged in this connection that this Explanation would not assist the petitioners in view of the proviso to Section 6(4) of the aforesaid Act, we are not satisfied if from the materials on record we could hold if the requirements of that proviso are existing in the present case. We may put on record that Shri Nandakumar Singh informed us after close of the hearing in the presence of the learned Advocate -General that the Director has been directed by the Government vide Memo No. 54/5/71 -IND dated 3 -8 -82 to renew the licence. Thus we do not find any difficulty in holding that the petitioners do have a subsisting right to approach the Court for ventilation of their grievances.