MUZAFFARPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 with its head office at 14. Old Court House Street. Calcutta, and local office at Dumri Road. Mazaffarpur. It is carrying on the business of generating, distributing, transmitting and supplying electrical energy to the different consumers of Mazaffarpur town. THE Municipality of Mazaffarpur is one of the biggest consumers of electricity inasmuch as the petitioner supplies electrical energy to the street lamps and water. supply system, both under the control and supervision of Muzaffarpur Municipality, on payment of consumption charges to the petitioner every month.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the Municipality of Muzaffarpur is a habitual defaulter and the amount of dues against the Municipality have by this date swollen to more than four lacs. As the Special Officer of the Muzaffarpur Municipality, in spite of repeated reminders did not take care to pay off the dues, the petitioner served a notice on the Special Officer under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 on the 24th October. 1968, asking him to pay up the dues otherwise the supply of electricity to the Municipality would be discontinued. Nothing was done by the Special Officer (opposite party No 3) to make payment of the dues; on the contrary, a title suit (Title Suit No 274 of 1968) was instituted by him on the 31st October 1968 in the Court of Munsif I, Muzaffarpur, where in a permanent injunction against the petition was prayed for. restraining the petitioner from disconnecting the supply of electricity. An order of ad Interim Injunction was granted and it continued for more than two years but the suit itself was dismissed as not maintainable. Even after the dismissal of the suit efforts were made by opposite party No. 3 to get an order of stay under Order 41, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, staying disconnection of the supply of electricity to the petitioner but this also was rejected on the 25th January. 1971. THE petitioner again served a notice under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act but just thereafter a proceeding under Section 144. Code of Criminal Procedure, was started against the Resident Engineer and the Director of the petitioner. company. THE notice issued to them ran as follows: Whereas from the report of the Officer 1/C Town P.S. Muzaffarpur it appears to me that you have either disconnected or (are) bent upon disconnecting the supply of electric energy to the Muzaffarpur water system and street lights for non. payment of dues of the Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company by the Muzaffarpur Municipality which amounts to serious consequences from the point of endangering the life of the citizens of Muzaffarpur town and it will also Pose serious law and order problem. You are hereby restrained under Section 144. Criminal Procedure Code from disconnecting the supply of electric energy to the Muzaffarpur water systemic street lights. Joy are also directed to restore the electric energy if already disconnected. You are hereby directed to appear in person on 2.2.71 at 10.30 a.m. in the Court of the undersigned and to show cause as to why the rule should not be made absolute against you. As would appear from the notice quoted above, in the first instance, the petitioner was restrained under Section 144. Code of Criminal Procedure from disconnecting the supply of electric energy to the Muzaffarpur water system and street lights." By the second Part of the notice the petitioner was directed" to restore the electric energy If already disconnected.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Munzaffarpur Municipality (opposite party No. 3) strongly urged that as the order has already spent its force, it could not be set aside. It is not possible for me to accept this submission of learned COUNSEL. In spite of the fact that the order had spent its force a rule was issued in the case of Saligram Singh v. Baijnath Singh AIR 1934 Patna 104 : 35 Cri LJ 1057 with a view to examine the legality or otherwise of the order. In that case the order passed, although spent by lapse of time before the hearing of the rule, was set aside, on the ground that no wrongful act of the petitioner (of that case) has been alleged or found. On the same lines is the decision in Hansraj Prasad Singh v. Abdul Jabbar AIR 1935 Pat 461 : 36 Cri LJ 1268. In the case Panchkesar Kuer v. Madho Singh (1938) 19 Pat LT 796 the order was set aside with the following observations (Per Varma. J.):