Disposed

Nirmal Chand Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 56 and 126 – Unauthorized use of electricity

Chhattisgarh HC7 Oct 2024WPC/343/2012

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined writ petitions challenging demand notices and disconnection of electricity supply issued without complying with Sections 56 and 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court held that the failure to issue a provisional assessment, provide a hearing, and follow statutory notice periods rendered the actions illegal and arbitrary. The petitions were disposed of with directions t

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on recovery of demand notices continued till respondent authorities decide the grievance in accordance with law after giving petitioners due opportunity of hearing.

Nirmal Chand Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 22

2024:CGHC:39906

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 343 of 2012

¶5

Order Reserved on 28.08.2024 Order Delivered on 08.10.2024

¶6

Nirmal Chand Jain, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Shri Kailash Chand Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Nirmal Chand Jain, R/o Sudarshan House, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Power and Supply, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited through Chief Executive Engineer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Senior Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Divisional Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Executive Engineer (O & M), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶15

Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Arjuni, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

WPC No. 390 of 2012

¶18

Smt. Padma Jain, aged about 48 years, W/o Shri Nirmal Chand Jain, R/o Village Ghorada, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Petitioner

¶20

versus

¶21

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Power and Supply, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

2 / 22

¶23

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited through Chief Executive Engineer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶24

Senior Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶25

Divisional Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶26

Executive Engineer (O & M), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶27

Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶28

Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Arjuni, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶29

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Rashi Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

¶30

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶31

C A V Order

¶32

1. Heard Mr. Aniruddh Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned for the petitioner in both the petitions. Also heard Ms. Rashi Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State.

¶33

2. The issues involved in both the writ petitions being common, they have been heard together and are being disposed by this common order.

¶34

3. In WPC No.343 of 2012, the petitioner has challenged the orders/demand notice dated 31.01.2012 issued by respondent No.5, which was sent on 04.02.2012 by respondent No.7, whereby respondent No.7 has ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of

¶35

3 / 22

¶36

Rs.8,51,386/- against the electricity bill within a period of 3 days. The petitioner in WPC No.343 of 2012 has prayed the following relief(s):-

¶37

“10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to issuance of the impugned order/demand notice dated 04/02/2012 (Annexure P-1) from the possession of respondent authorities.

¶38

10.2 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/demand notice dated 04/02/2012 (Annexure P-1) insofar as it pertains to the petitioner.

¶39

10.3 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to restoration of electricity supply in petitioners' compound which was disconnected on 08/02/2012.

¶40

10.4 Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.”

¶41

4. In WPC No.390 of 2012, the petitioner has challenged the order/demand notice dated 30.12.2011 issued by respondent No.7, whereby respondent No.7 has ordered the petitioner to pay the provisional bill of Rs.4,33,805/- within 24 hours. The challenge is also made against the action of the respondent authorities that they have not followed the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2003”) as they have not provided

¶42

4 / 22

¶43

any opportunity of hearing to petitioner before issuing the demand notice. The petitioner in WPC No.390 of 2012 has prayed for following relief(s):-

¶44

“10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to issuance of the impugned order/demand notice dated 26/12/2011 and 30/11/2011 (Annexure P-1) from the possession of respondent authorities.

¶45

10.2 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/demand notices dated 26/12/2011 and 30/11/2011 (Annexure P-1) insofar as it pertains to the petitioner.

¶46

10.3 Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.”

¶47

5. Brief facts for disposal of WPC No.343 of 2012 are as follows :-

¶48

The petitioner was running a crusher machine in village Ghorda, District Rajnandgaon since 1997 and there was no complaint from the respondent's side for paying the electricity bill neither any kind of temper was done with electricity by the petitioner. The petitioner has taken the electricity connection in the year 1997 from the respondent authorities for mining purpose with a capacity upto 25 Horse Power at village Ghorda. The work of the petitioner is for limited period because usually the crusher machine has to be stopped due to natural calamities especially in rainy season due to unavailability of labours as well as heavy

¶49

5 / 22

¶50

rain fall and the said running period was very crucial for a business purpose for the petitioner.

¶51

On 30.01.2006, the vigilance team of Electricity Board made enquiry on the premises of the petitioner and found that there was no irregularities, therefore, on 11.07.2006, the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) had directed the Junior Engineer, Arjuni to withdraw all the demand, which was given to the petitioner.

¶52

• In the year 2007, the petitioner had made request to the respondent authorities for new meter for the premises with all the process fees as well as the charges of new meter and the respondent authorities instead of installing new electric meter have installed old electric meter in the work premises of the petitioner. The petitioner has given a proper application to the respondent authorities on 08.11.2011 requesting them to enhance the power from 25 Horse Power (H.P.) to 40 Horse Power (H.P.) for his premises and has paid the processing fees of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent authorities.

¶53

On 16.11.2011, the Vigilance team of respondent authorities has made a raid in the premises of the petitioner and prepared a Panchnama as also seized the electricity meter installed there. Respondent no. 7 has given an information to the petitioner stating that he would be present on 03.12.2011 at about 10.30 A.M. for investigation of the said meter in laboratory of respondent department situated at Bhilai. On 07.12.2011, the petitioner moved an application regarding enquiry of meter which

¶54

6 / 22

¶55

was seized by vigilance officer stating that aforesaid seized meter was an old used meter and the same was installed on 04.12.2007 by the department. At that relevant time, reading of meter was showing as 4012, therefore, there was no question of tempering with the meter.

¶56

• On 26/12/2011, respondent No.4 has issued a demand letter to the petitioner after proper inquiry and objection was taken out from petitioner to settled the bill of Rs.35,859/- The said amount was calculated as per load. The petitioner was surprised and shocked when he received another bill amounting to Rs.6.68.944/- stating that it has to pay the said bill within 24 hours and in case of default of payment, the authorities have power to disconnect the electricity supply. Thereafter, the petitioner has directly rushed to the office of Executive Engineer and communicated regarding the bill stating that how is it possible when after enquiry, the department has already settled the demand bill dated 27.12.2011. Executive Engineer (O&M) has stated that he has to firstly pay the bill of Rs.35,659.30, on due date because that bill was a final bill which was related to Vigilance enquiry along with security deposit for enhancement of horse power. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid both the amounts on 03.01.2012 i.e. Rs.35,659/- for bill amount and Rs.6,416/- for security deposit for enhancement of electricity load.

¶57

Again on 06.02.2012, the petitioner was highly shocked when he received additional demand notice on third time amounting to

¶58

7 / 22

¶59

Rs.8,51,386/- stating that it has to be paid within a period of 3 days though demand notice was prepared on 04.02.2012, however it was received by the petitioner on 06.02.2012 and within one day i.e. on 08.02.2012, the respondent department had disconnected the electricity supply on the premises of the petitioner without providing proper opportunity of hearing to him.

¶60

• On 06.02.2012, the petitioner has moved an application before Executive Engineer stating about status of meter, which was installed on the premises of the petitioner in the year 2007 with respect to that he was paid the money for a new meter and how they installed the old meter. In reply to that, on 07.02.2012, Junior Engineer, Arjuni given an information regarding status of meter which was installed by the department on the premises of the petitioner stating that the meter was old and reading was shown as 4052 in the said meter No.05416542.

¶61

On 10.02.2012, again the petitioner has made a detailed representation before the concerned authority regarding illegal demand and disconnection of electricity supply of his premises.

¶62

The petitioner was harassed by the department though he has paid his entire pending bill as well as additional demand raised by the respondent department, but till date, he was facing harassment and hardship in terms of day by day raising so many additional demands by the department. The department has not followed the mandatory provision of demand notice of 15 days, which was prescribed in Section 56 (1) of the Act of 2003 and he

¶63

8 / 22

¶64

was facing heavy loss due to disconnection of electricity in his premises. Hence, the petition.

¶65

6. Brief facts for disposal of WPC No.390 of 2012 are as follows :-

¶66

The petitioner was a farmer in village Ghorda and she purchased the land in the year 1985 & 1989 from Ramratan and Babu Lal and others respectively bearing Khasara No.362/3, area 1.00 acre and Khasara No.366/1, area 0.63 acre. The petitioner has taken the electricity connection in the year 1987 for the irrigation purpose for a land which was situated at village Ghorda. The petitioner has taken water from mines which was already dead/exhausted in the year 1989.

¶67

• A complaint was made by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ghorda before the respondent authorities regarding use of pump. On complaint of Sarpanch, Assistant Engineer, Rajnandgaon has appointed as an Enquiry Officer and in enquiry, he found that the pump was totally used for irrigation purpose for the land of petitioner and in addition to that, the Assistant Engineer mentioned that complaint of Sarpanch was not found to be true.

¶68

• Thereafter, second complaint was made by some persons before the respondent authorities for use of pump and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board enquired the field of petitioner and after enquiry on 05.08.1997, the Board has asked the petitioner to produce the certificate regarding that particular pump was used for agricultural purpose. On demand, the Department of Agriculture

¶69

9 / 22

¶70

Dongargaon has issued a certificate, which certified that particular connection is used only for irrigation in agriculture land of the petitioner.

¶71

Again on 16/07/2011, the Vigilance team made a raid on the land of petitioner in absence of petitioner and found that the connection was installed there for agriculture purpose and the petitioner was taking water from dead mines for agricultural purpose and contrary to that, Vigilance officer has seized the meter and sent it to laboratory.

¶72

• On 07.12.2011, the petitioner made a complaint regarding harassment done by the Vigilance officer though it was already certified twice in past that the connection which was installed in the particular land was only for irrigation purpose. It was further alleged that the meter which was installed on 09.10.2007 was old meter, therefore, there was no question of tempering with the same. On 26.12.2011, respondent No.5 illegally issued the order/demand notice amounting to Rs.1,50,185/- with the calculation sheet for the pump which installed in the dead quarry. Though the quarry are dead and cancelled but the stones were taking out from some other quarry situated nearby the dead quarry and the water was coming from the running quarry. It was an admitted fact that the petitioner used to take water from the dead quarry, but it was also important that the purpose of using water was only for irrigation purpose

¶73

On 30.12.2011, the petitioner was shocked and surprised when

¶74

10 / 22

¶75

she received the another impugned demand notice from the respondent authorities amounting Rs.4,33,605/-, in which, there was a warning to pay the entire bill within 24 hours else the respondent authorities were disconnected the electricity supply on the field of petitioner.

¶76

The respondent authorities were only confusing/harassing the petitioner by issuing bills day by day without following the provisions of the Act of 2003 whereby there is a provision to assessment of bill as well as the demand of bill, but in the case at hand, the respondent authorities were failed to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as they have not given any time to file objection before concerned authority.

¶77

On 12.01.2012, the petitioner informed the concerned authority regarding use of land stating that still there are crops or paddy and vegetables as well as he annexed the certificate issued by the Agriculture Officer On 18.01.2012, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities stating that the officers of respondent company used to come every day and give threat to the petitioner that she had to pay both the bill as soon as possible, failing which they were bound to disconnect the connection.

¶78

On 23.01.2012, the petitioner was sought for an information regarding purpose of electricity connection issued to the petitioner. In reply, respondent authorities have informed the petitioner that particular connection was installed in the year

¶79

11 / 22

¶80

1987 and she used the same connection for irrigation purpose. The petitioner was paid the electricity bills regularly from the date of installation of the meter and till date, there was no default in payment of electricity bill.

¶81

The respondent authorities were still confused regarding assessment of bill and before issuing such bills, they were not given any opportunity to file objection or reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the order of assessment of electricity charge payable by the petitioner. The respondent authorities were not in a position to explain whether instant was a case of unauthorized use of electricity or in other means, they were done the said act only to harass a lady who was using water for the purpose of irrigation in her agriculture land. As such, the act of the respondent was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the petition.

¶82

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WPC No.343 of 2012 submits that the respondent authorities have made two allegations against the petitioner vide impugned demand notices, which are- (i) the Petitioner has illegally tampered with the meter; and (ii) the Petitioner committed theft of electricity using the tempered meter. He further submits that no tampering of meter was done by the petitioner as respondent authorities installed an old meter in the year 2007 instead of a new meter. It has been contended that on 07.02.2012, Junior Executive Engineer Arjuni has stated that the meter installed on 04.12.2007 showed reading as 4052 units, therefore, it is proved that an old meter was installed

¶83

12 / 22

¶84

instead of a new one. It has been further contended that petitioner has not committed any theft of electricity as there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was engaged in an unauthorized use of electricity. It has been argued that the respondent authorities have not followed the mandatory procedure enumerated under Sections 56 and 126 of the Act of 2003. It has been lastly submitted that on an application submitted by the petitioner, the electricity load has been increased from 25 Horse Power (H.P.) to 40 Horse Power (H.P.).

¶85

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WPC No.390 of 2012 submits that the respondent authorities have made two allegations against the petitioner vide impugned demand notices, which are- (i) the Petitioner illegally tampered with the meter; (ii) the Petitioner committed theft of electricity using the tempered meter; and (iii) the electricity connection/meter was being used for commercial purpose and not agricultural purpose, which are bad in law. He further submits that no tampering of meter was done by the petitioner as the respondent authorities installed an old meter in the 2007 instead of a new meter. It has been contended that on 07.02.2012, Junior Executive Engineer, Arjuni has stated that the meter was installed on 09.10.2007 with a reading of 2198 units, therefore, it is proved that an old meter was installed instead of a new one and hence, no tampering of meter was done by the petitioner. It has been further contended that the petitioner has not committed any theft of electricity. It has been argued that assessment under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 is necessary for

¶86

13 / 22

¶87

determining the amount of fine in the demand notice, which was not done in accordance with law. It has been further argued that assessment of bill has been done behind the back of the petitioner without providing opportunity as per provisions of the Act of 2003. It has been submitted that the respondent authorities have not followed the mandatory procedure as enumerated under Sections 56 and 126 of the Act of 2003 before cutting-off the electricity connection in the premises of the petitioner; moreover, the usage of electricity through a tampered meter is covered within the definition of "unauthorized use of electricity" as per provisions of Section 126(6)(b)(iii) of the Act of 2003. It has been further submitted that respondent authorities have made a false allegation that the electricity connection was being used for a commercial purpose and the petitioner has not submitted any relevant documents or certificates to demonstrate that she was undertaking agricultural activities. It has been lastly argued that Joint Inspection Report dated 01.09.2016 and certificate dated 23.09.1997 clearly proved that petitioner was undertaking agricultural activities.

¶88

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions has placed reliance on the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Thomas Joseph alias Thomas M.J. and Ors. reported in AIR 2023 Supreme Court 126 , as also judgment rendered by Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the matter of M/S Stan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Through One of Its Directors Shri Pawan Kumar Poddar v. Jharkhand

¶89

14 / 22

¶90

State Electricity Board, Ranchi, Through Its Chairman and Ors. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Jhar 386 as well as judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the matter of New Delhi Municipal Council v. Tewari House Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5767 .

¶91

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State in both the writ petitions has submitted that the entire relief(s) as claimed by the petitioners in both the writ petitions against respondents No.2 to 7 and State is only a formal party. She further submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of both the writ petitions as well as considering the fact that grievance of the petitioner in both the writ petitions are against respondents No.2 to 7 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed insofar as it relates to State is concerned.

¶92

11. Since last many occasions, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 7 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited were not appeared before this Court in spite of repeated calls made in this regard. The reply-affidavit has been filed by respondents No.2 to 7 way back on 30.08.2012.

¶93

12. From the order-sheets, it is apparent that on 03.08.2024, no one appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 to 7. When the matters were called up for hearing on 28.08.2024, none appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 to 7. Since the matters were very old, pertaining to the year 2012, the same were heard and the order was reserved.

¶94

15 / 22

¶95

13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considered their rival submission made herein and gone through the record thoroughly and extensively.

¶96

14. The very question for consideration in both the writ petitions are whether mandatory provisions enumerated under Sections 56 and 126 of the Act of 2003 was complied with by the respondent authorities while issuing demand notice to the petitioners and whether the petitioners be given opportunity of hearing before issuing such demand notice by the respondent authorities ?

¶97

15. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of law. Section 56 of the Act of 2003 deals with the provision of disconnection of electric supply only on default of payment, which reads as follows:

¶98

“ 56. Disconnection of supply in default of

¶99

payment- (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through

¶100

16 / 22

¶101

which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer:

¶102

Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits under protest:

¶103

(a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or

¶104

(b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months,

¶105

whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.

¶106

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this Section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

¶107

16. From plain reading of Section 56 of the Act of 2003, it is evident that if a person neglects to sum other than a charge for electricity due from him in respect of supply, transmission etc, his line can be

¶108

17 / 22

¶109

disconnected after giving him not less than fifteen clear days' notice in writing and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum, as the case may be.

¶110

17. In the cases at hand, there is no allegation of non-payment of any electricity bill. The provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 2003 provided that fifteen days' clear notice in writing was given before disconnecting the supply of electricity even in the case of default in payment.

¶111

18. Section 126 of the Act of 2003 provides for assessment on the conclusion of the assessing officer if a person is found indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, which reads as follows for easy reference:

¶112

“ 126. Assessment- (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.

¶113

(2) The Order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶114

18 / 22

¶115

[(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under Sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final Order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.]

¶116

(4) Any person served with the Order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment Order upon him.

¶117

[***]

¶118

[(5) If the Assessing Officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.]

¶119

(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at the rate equal to [twice] the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5).”

¶120

19. From bare perusal of Section 126 of the Act of 2003, it appears that

¶121

19 / 22

¶122

if on inspection, any person is found guilty of unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. It further provided for making provisional assessment and service of such assessment on the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises giving the concerned person an opportunity to file objections or giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the order of assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person.

¶123

20. In the matter of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphatically held that requirement of principle of natural justice is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian, which makes it imperative to provide opportunity of hearing before taking any prejudicial action against the person.

¶124

21. In the matter of M/S Stan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand has held as under :

¶125

“17. In view of the above discussions, I find no justification of the Respondents' action in disconnecting the Petitioner's electric supply line without making any assessment in accordance with the provisions of Sections 126 for the alleged unauthorized use of electricity and without taking recourse to the provisions of Section 56 of the said Act and without complying with requirement of the

¶126

20 / 22

¶127

principle of natural justice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, the Respondents' action of disconnecting the Petitioner's electric line is held illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice. The Respondents are directed to restore the Petitioner's electric supply forthwith. The Respondents are, however, at liberty to proceed and take action against the Petitioner under the provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or under any other relevant provisions of law, if situation so warrants, in view of the nature of the allegation against the Petitioner which may also follow the prescribed legal consequences, as the case may be.”

¶128

22. In the matter of New Delhi Municipal Council (supra) , the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the procedure of filing of objections and hearing under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 was not followed and that the authority invoking the provision of Section 126 is duty-bound to follow the procedure of the said provision by observing as follows :

¶129

“12. As to the future course of action, it is noted that NDMC's claim relates to the year 2015. However, Mr. Vohra submits that no provisional assessment order was served upon the respondent under Section 126(2) of the Act, and the procedure of filing of objections and hearing under Section 126 was also not followed. This factual position

¶130

21 / 22

¶131

is undisputed. As NDMC purports to invoke the provision of Section 126, it is duty-bound to follow the procedure of the said provision. Therefore, instead of remanding the matter to the Forum at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that NDMC may issue a provisional assessment order under Section 126(1) of the Act and thereafter follow the scheme of Section 126 to determine the liability of the respondent, if any. The rights and contentions of the parties, to this extent, remain reserved.”

¶132

23. Considering the facts of the cases in its entirety, this Court find no justification on the action taken by the respondent authorities in issuing demand notices to the petitioners in both the petitions with regard to electricity supply without making any assessment in accordance with the provisions of Sections 126 of the Act of 2003 for the alleged unauthorized use of electricity and without taking recourse to the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 2003 as well as without complying with requirement of the principles of natural justice as also without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶133

24. For the aforementioned reasons and discussions, the action of the respondent authorities is held to be illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶134

25. From perusal of the record would show that interim order was passed in both the writ petitions on 26.06.2012 for staying the recovery of the demand made by the respondent authorities. The

¶135

22 / 22

¶136

said order shall continue till the respondent authorities decide the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law after giving them due opportunity of hearing and following the principles of natural justice in its true spirit.

¶137

26. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed and take action against the petitioners under the provision of Section 126 of the Act of 2003 or under any other relevant provisions of law, if situation so warrants, in view of the nature of the allegation against the petitioners which may also follow the prescribed legal consequences, as the case may be.

¶138

27. With the aforementioned observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶139

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶140

Yogesh

¶141

YOGESH TIWARI

¶142

Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2024.10.15 11:22:05 +0530

Nirmal Chand Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Chand Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Vandana Vidhyut Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Prakash Industries Limited Vs Union of Iindia and Ors.

M/S Vandana Vidhyut Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Church of Christ Mission in India Vs C.G. Information Commission

Church of Christ Mission in India, Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Uddhav Prasad Tiwari and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.