KARABI KARMAKAR Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTROCITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the issue involved, I propose to dispose of this Civil Revision Petition at the admission stage.

(2.) The petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12-3-2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Misc Appeal No. 10/2002 affirming the order dated 9-7- 2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2 in Misc Case No. 10/2002 rejecting the said petition. The petitioners husband Shri Paritosh Chandra Karmakar during his life time was the owner of the building involved in the proceeding. After his death, the petitioner and her children being the legal heirs are the owners thereof. On receiving a notice dated 12-9-2000 from the Assam State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") asking the petitioner to submit test report, documents, etc. for regularization of the load of electricity to the building, she complied therewith and requested the Board to take necessary steps for regularizing the service connection. The petitioner also made payment of the penalty bills for unauthorised load as claimed by the Board. However, no steps were taken by the Board for extension of the load and for regularization of the service connection to the petitioners building. Instead, the Board issued three bills threatening disconnection if no payment was made. Situated thus, the petitioner eventually filed the aforementioned suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior division) No. 2, Silchar, She also filed two applications one praying for injunction restraining the Board from disconnecting the electricity supply to the Building and the second for a mandatory injunction to direct the authorities of the Board to grant exclusion of the sanctioned load to the building. The first application was registered as Misc Case No. 9/2002 and the application for mandatory injunction as Misc case No. 10/2002. The learned Court below granted injunction in Misc Case No. 9/2002 aganst which the Board preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court below and the order of injunction having been modified, the petitioner approached this Court with CRP No. 223/2002 and this Court by order dated 26-7-2002 suspended the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court and directed that the petitioner be allowed to enjoy the electric connection subject to payment of the regular bills. Thereafter the learned trial Court by an order dated 7-9-2002 rejected the application for mandatory injunction. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Misc. appeal No. 10/2002 before the learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar, wherein the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) Mr. Goswami while assailing the impugned order has argued that the considerations on which the same has been passed are irrelevant to the issue and on that ground alone the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. According to him, the aspect of payment of electricity charges which forms the subject matter of the petition for temporary injunction was not relevant for the purpose of deciding the application for mandatory injunction for grant of extension of load to the petitioners building. The learned Court below, therefore, apparently erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order, he argued. Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the Board has fairly submitted that without prejudice to the stand of the Board with regard to its claim to the electric charges which is the subject matter of the injunction petition as well as of the CRP No. 223/2002 before this Court, there is no difficulty in considering the request of the petitioner for extension of load in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply.