KISHORI DEVI Vs. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the writ petitions relate to restoration of electric connection bearing consumer No. 19-256011500/191641 C/S2, with consent of parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Petitioner in the first case is the landlady and petitioners in the second case are tenants. In both the writ petitions prayer is to direct the Respondents to restore electric connection which was disconnected by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, (Revenue) Bankipur. Supply Division, Patna University, Patna (Respondent No. 4) on 25.11.1999 without any notice. In the second writ petition, further prayer is to instal the meter separately to shop of the petitioners after accepting the form and its requisites which have been refused by the Respondents.

(3.) According to the case of the petitioner in the first case, she is bonafide consumer and the aforementioned connection stood in her name and she was paying electric bill regularly. However, on 25.11.1999 premises was suddenly checked by Respondent No. 4 who found that the electric connection was being provided to the renter in the shopping complex which belong to her for which Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 300 dated 25.11.1999 under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379, I.P.C. was registered against Birendra Kumar Sah and others. According to her, she took 1 K.W. electric connection from the Respondent-Board and pays commercial electric bill and there is no question of theft of electricity. According to the case of the petitioners in the second case, the shopping complex has one meter of landlady and it is connected with all four shops which belong to the petitioners. In both the writ petitions, it is stated that renter are ready to take electric connection but the Respondents are not ready to give fresh electric connection, causing unnecessary loss to them as the shops of the petitioners are only source of their livelihood. Their further case is that when the electric meter ceased to function the petitioner landlady informed Assistant Engineer (Electrical) of the area on 22.9.1998 but no step was taken either to remove the defects in the meter or to change the meter rather the Respondent started to take the electric charge on the fixed unit determined by the authority. A true copy o the application dated 22.9.1998 has been annexed as Annexure-4.