SANJEEV TRADING COMPANY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of Letter No. 1563/E.S.E./Ranchi dated 25.04.2014 (Annexure -3) issued by Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electricity Supply Circle, Ranchi, whereby he has refused to give fresh electricity connection to the petitioner, as dues of electricity charges exists on the same premises.

(2.) IT is submitted by Sri Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had taken a Cold Storage on lease from Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited. After taking the said Cold Storage on lease, petitioner applied for electricity connection, which was refused by Annexure -3 on the ground that erstwhile lessee namely C.P. Singh has not paid electricity dues to the tune of Rs. 43,394/ - to the Board. It is submitted that since petitioner is new lessee of the Cold Storage, therefore, he is not liable to pay outstanding dues of earlier lessee and the Board cannot refuse electricity connection to the petitioner, on the ground of aforesaid dues of earlier lessee. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court Annexure -4, as well as another judgment reported in, 2001 (1) Jhr. CR 284 (Jhr.).

(3.) HAVING heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly, the petitioner took the Cold Storage from the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited by Annexure -C. From perusal of Annexure -C, it is clear that still the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited owned the cold storage. It further appears" from the terms and condition of the said deed that petitioner, who is said to be lessee, has been only authorized to efficiently run and manage the said Cold Storage. Thus, from the terms and condition of the lease, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed by the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited as an agent to run and manage the Cold Storage. In view of the aforesaid terms and condition, I find that though in the said deed petitioner was shown as a lessee, but in true sense he is not a lessee rather he is an agent of the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Limited. Under the said circumstance, petitioner cannot be treated as tenant/lessee of the said Cold Storage. Thus, the judgment relied by him at Annexure -4 and, 2001 (1) Jhr. CR 284 (Jhr.) will not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case, because in those cases the lessee or subsequent tenant had applied for electricity connection. So far this case is concerned, only agency has changed and petitioner by Annexure -C has been appointed as an agent to run and manage Cold Storage.