GH MOHD MATA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are five in number allege that they own certain mills run on electric power supplied by the respondents and ask for a writ of Mandamus as well as prohibition directing the respondents (a) to charge the petitioners for the electricity supplied to them at the old rates and not at the enhanced rates mentioned in Order No. 1 -Dev/Camp of 1958 dated 29 -5 -1958, (b) to supply electricity to the petitioners for twelve hours uninterruptedly every day, and (c) charge the price of electricity according to the Metre system,. The petitioners also claim general relief of any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(2.) THE first respondent is the State and the second respondent is the Electrical Engineer, Baramulla Division. The main contention of the respondents is that the petition is not maintainable, as it relates entirely to the enforcement of the contact between the petitioners and the respondents. It is further pointed out that petitioners 1 to 4 are ordered strangers who are not entitled to the supply of electricity by the respondents under contract or otherwise. Regarding the fifth petitioner, it is alleged (hat his remedy, if any, is not by way of a writ but by an appropriate action at law in the ordinary civil court.

(3.) IT does not appear that petitioners 1 to 4 have locus sandi to maintain the petition; they have not entered into any engagement with the respondents in respect of supply of electricity. The learned counsel for the petitioners docs not take his stand on any provision of law under which the petitioners are entitled to be supplied electricity by the respondents. It is common ground that there is no statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to supply electricity to any of the petitioners at certain fixed rates or during certain fixed months. The petitioners can. therefore, base their claim only on contract between them and the respondents. As no such contract has been entered into between petitioners 1 to 4 and the respondents, the former cannot maintain the present petition. But this does not dispose of the matter. Petitioner No. 5 has in his favour a valid contract from the respondents for supply of electricity. The question then is whether he has a remedy by way of writ in respect of that contract? As I mentioned earlier, the writs asked tor are Mandamus and prohibition. The learned Advocate General has urged that neither of these writs is available in this case. I think his conlention is well founded. I shall first deal with the writ of Mandamus.