CHANDRAPAUL SAW MILLS Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ application is the Chandrapaul Saw Mills through its proprietor Smt. Shyama Devi. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate order/orders etc. commanding the respondents to show cause as to why they shall not supply electrical energy to the petitioner forthwith. The respondents in the writ petition, as originally filed, were the Bihar State Electricity Board, the Electrical Superintending Engineer of the aforesaid Board and its Assistant Electrical Engineer.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's Unit situated at Ramdeo Bagan in Golmuri area of the town of Jamshedpur is a Saw Mill which the proprietor of the petitioner has set up with the aid of the District Industries Centre, Singhbhum; Chaibasa. It is claimed that the petitioner was granted a licence and is registered with the Factory Inspection Department. The petitioner applied for a new service connection for a connected load of 20 H.P. It deposited the requisite amounts by way of expenses and security charges. This was done on 24-6-1982. Despite the fact that the petitioner did all that it was required to do the electric connection was not granted to it, and, therefore, its unit cannot be worked without supply of electrical energy. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that the Respondent-Board cannot arbitrarily deny to supply electric energy to the petitioner. It has been alleged that some other persons have been granted electric connection by the Board, particulars whereof are disclosed in the supplementary affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner. The writ application was admitted for hearing on 12-4-1983. An interim direction was made on that date to the effect that respondent No. 1 shall grant electric connection to the factory premises of the petitioner by 20th April, 1983. It was further directed that if the writ application was ultimately dismissed, the electric connection of the petitioner shall also be disconnected. It appears from the order sheet of the writ application that the electric connection was not granted to the petitioner, and consequently an application was filed by it in that connection. This Court by order dated 8-7-1983 directed that the said application be treated as Miscellaneous Judicial case being an application under the Contempt of Courts Act. Notice was issued to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of Court for not complying with the order of this Court dated 12-4-1983. It further appears that in connection with the aforesaid application, it came to light that Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as TISCO) was also a necessary party. Accordingly, by order dated 13-9-1983 the said TISCO was added as respondent No. 4 in the writ application and notice was issued to it.

(3.) TISCO appeared in response to the notice issued by this Court and filed its counter affidavit on 19-11-1984. In the counter affidavit it was averred by TISCO that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief from this Court since it had not come to the Court with clean hands and had suppressed the material facts. It was stated that the petitioner had set up a Saw Mill on a plot of land which belonged to TISCO. The petitioner was merely a trespasser and had no legal right to start a Saw Mill over the land of TISCO which it had forcibly occupied. It was then stated that TISCO is a Sanction Holder under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 with the exclusive right to supply electrical energy in the area specified in the Sanction, commonly known as the Command Area. The location of the proposed Saw Mill was within the Command, Area of TISCO. Respondents Nos. I to 3 had therefore no power or authority to accept any amount from the petitioner to grant a new electric connection. It was contended on behalf of TISCO that the petitioner in order to get itself recognised and its illegal occupation regularised, was trying to get electric connection from the Bihar State Electricity Board. It is not necessary to refer to the other averments in the counter affidavit. In a nutshell, TISCO claimed to be a Sanction Holder under S.28 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, and consequently, only TISCO could have supplied electrical energy to the petitioner within its Command Area. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 namely, the Board and its officers had no authority to grant electric connection to the petitioner.