PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case projected by Electricity Board, appellant is a queer one. After sanctioning two electricity connections in the name of father and son separately, an effort was made after having checking done, that excessive load was being used from the electric connection granted in favour of son Satish Kumar, the complainant and hence notice was issued demanding Rs.6,750/-. The electricity was disconnected. The complainant was constrained to deposit the aforesaid amount and the connection was restored. Subsequently, Satish Kumar challenged the action of the Electricity Board as aforesaid in the present complaint. The Electricity Board took up the stand based on the instructions of Circular No.78 of 1995 that at one premises, two electric connections could not be issued and hence clubbing the load of two connections, the electric connection of Satish Kumar was held to be unauthorised and the demand was rightly made. The District Forum did not accept the plea of the Electricity Board and held the action to be illegal and the deficiency in rendering service.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant Board has referred to Instructions 78/95 as issued by the Electricity Board which read as under : " (i) Where any person whether or not a member of the family, partner, director etc. , applies for a new connection in the same premises, this should be allowed only if : (a) there is a physical separation; and (b) also where the premises in question are legally transferred, sold or leased to the new unit, an appropriate entry exists in the municipal record regarding such transfer. This implies that there should be a registered deed for lease or sale and informal agreement of family partition/lease etc. should not be accepted. "

(3.) No reliance can be placed on such instructions at this stage. When Satish Kumar applied for the electric connection, it was open to the Electricity Board to inspect the premises and find out whether the premises where electric connection was sought were separate from his father's where another electric connection had already been issued. If this was not done and connection was issued; the Electricity Board would be estopped from urging that electricity was liable to be disconnected and raising demand as aforesaid. It may be observed that in case it is found that the connection is unauthorised, they could simply disconnect it, of course, after giving notice, allowing opportunity to consumer to satisfy as to whether his premises for which he has taken electric connection were separate from other premises where his father was having connection. In the present case, no such thing, even after checking has been done. Suffice it to say that raising demand subsequently, clubbing the load of two electric connections, is illegal and the order of the Distt. Forum is justified in law. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs as the respondent is not represented.