Allowed

Indian Explosive Limited through Its Constituted Attorney Bijay Kumar Dubey v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 May 2015WPC/3257/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing the grant of an electrical connection. The court held that the occupier suppressed facts regarding pending litigation and the petitioner's objection. Consequently, the connection was to be disconnected and disciplinary proceedings initiated against the officials.

What did the court decide?

Writ application allowed; electrical connection and electricity supply to respondent no. 4 quashed and directions issued to disconnect the same immediately.

Indian Explosive Limited through Its Constituted… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P (C)No. 3257 of 2013 Indian Explosive Limited, Bokaro Petitioner.

¶2

Versus

¶3

Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi

¶4

Electrical Executive Engineer, Bokaro

¶5

Assistant Electrical Engineer, Bokaro

¶6

Shri Naresh Kumar Manek, Bokaro. Respondents

¶7

. ------

¶8

CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani For the JSEB : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate. For Respondent No.4: Mr. Venkatesh Gopal

¶11

¶12

06/14.05.2015. This writ application has been filed for quashing the letter as contained in Memo No. 303 dated 09.05.2013 ( Annexure-11) issued by respondent no.2, whereby and where under he directed respondent no.3 to take all steps for providing electrical connection in the premises of respondent no.4. Petitioner further prayed for issuance of a direction commanding the respondents not to act in furtherance of Annnexure-11.

¶13

2. It is stated that petitioner acquired various lands including Plot No.4 under Khata no. 67 in Mouza-Sasbera through registered Deed of Indenture executed by the Governor of Bihar. It is stated that later on petitioner through an agreement gave licence to the father of respondent no.4. After the death of said licensee ( father of respondent no.4), respondent no.4 started running a Petrol Pump and Car Servicing Station in the name of M/s Premji Ramji Manek on the land in question. It is stated that said license has been renewed from time to time on payment of rent. It is also stated that petitioner gave electrical and water connection to the aforesaid licensee on payment of charges. It is stated that father of respondent no.4 paid all the rents and charges during his life time.

¶14

3. It is submitted that respondent no. 4 has filed a suit vide Title Suit No. 22 of 2003 in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat for declaration of his right, title and possession over the land in question. In the said suit respondent no.4 had filed an application Under Order XXXIX Rules-1 and 2 for granting temporary injunction. It appears that the learned Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat had disposed of aforesaid application in the following terms :

¶15

-2-

¶16

"Therefore in the result, the application of the plaintiff U/o-39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section -151 C.P.C. is hereby accepted and temporary injunction is granted to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to deposit all the dues of the defendant No.1 and 2 within a month. The plaintiff is also directed to cooperate in quick disposal of the suit. The defendants No.1 and 2 are directed not to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and not disconnect the water and electric supply. The plaintiff is again directed to deposit all the dues said above to the defendant No.1 and 2 without fail."

¶17

4. Against the said order respondent no.4 had preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Bokaro vide Misc. Appeal No.13 of 2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.06.2005 ( Annexure-5). Thereafter, respondent no.4 challenged both the orders in this court vide W.P.C. No. 4118 of 2005, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2005 ( Annexure-6). It is stated that aforesaid Title Suit is still pending. It is then stated that during pendency of aforesaid title suit, respondent no.4 has filed an application before the L.R.D.C. Bermo for mutation, which was allowed by L.R.D.C. Bermo on 06.11.2007 and against that order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide Misc. Appeal No. 110 of 2007. The aforesaid appeal was allowed on 14.09.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and the order of mutation passed by the L.R.D.C. Bermo had been set aside. It appears that thereafter, respondent no.4 had filed an application before the respondent no. 2 and 3 for giving electrical connection in the disputed property. It is worth mentioning that after receiving said application, respondent no.3 vide letter no. 14 dated 23.04.2013 asked the petitioner to give objection if any. The petitioner filed its objection vide letter dated 29.04.2013, wherein it had enclosed all the above orders i.e. order dated 10.06.2004 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 22 of 2003, order dated 17.06.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2004, order dated 16.12.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 4118 of 2005 and order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro whereby the mutation order passed by L.R.D.C. had been set aside. It is relevant to mention that the aforesaid objection of the petitioner was received in the office

¶18

-3-

¶19

of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-division, Kathara/Gomia on 29.04.2013. It appears that inspite of the aforesaid objection, respondent no.2 vide letter as contained in memo no. 303 dated 09.05.2013 had directed respondent no.3 to give electrical connection to the respondent no.4. In the said letter, respondent no.3 had made an endorsement that petitioner had not produced any paper relating to the land and the order of the court by which respondent no.2 has been prohibited from giving electrical connection. The aforesaid letter challenged in this writ application.

¶20

5. It is submitted by Sri A.K.Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per Clause 5 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2005, request for new connection of electricity can be made by the owner or occupier of the premises. He then submitted that petitioner in its objection has clearly stated that respondent no.4 is not the owner of the premises, rather he filed a suit for declaration of his title over the land in question,wherein the court had prima facie found that nature of occupation of respondent no.4 is of landlord and tenant. He submitted that respondent no.4 had suppressed the aforesaid fact and filed present application before respondent nos. 2 and 3 with a view to circumvent the orders of the court. It is submitted that petitioner had brought the aforesaid facts in the notice of respondent nos. 2 and 3 vide his objection dated 29.04.2013 but the respondent nos. 2 and 3 with an ulterior motive had given electric connection to the respondent no.4 and thereby interfered with the orders of the courts.

¶21

6. It appears that respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed two counter affidavits wherein they stated that they gave electrical connection to respondent no.4 on the basis of mutation order issued by the competent authority. Accordingly, they stated that they have not committed any illegality. Thus, present writ application is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

7 . Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case.

¶23

8. It appears that vide order dated 13.05.2005, respondent no.2 was directed to produce the entire record by which electric connection given to the respondent no.4. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, respondent no.2,

¶24

-4-

¶25

namely, Mr. Hari Narayan Ram, physically appeared in this Court and produced photocopy of entire documents on the basis of which electrical connection given in the premises of the respondent no.4. 9. From perusal of the application-form filed by the respondent no.4, I find that in the said application, he has not disclosed the nature of his possession over the land in question. He has no where stated as to whether he is owner or lessee. It is worth mentioning that Clause 3 (b) of the said application, which relates to aforesaid information, is blank. It is worth mentioning that the Clause 5 of the aforesaid Electricity Supply Code Regulation clearly lays down that requisition for new supply of electricity can be made either by the owner or occupier of the premises. The application-form further lays down that if applicant is not the owner , then he is require to give written permission of the landlord for obtaining electric connection in his name. In this case, from perusal of application-form, I found that respondent no.4 had not given such information. It further appears that petitioner vide letter dated 29.04.2013 had given all the informations regarding litigation going on between the parties along with the orders of the Court. It is also worth mentioning that learned SubJudge-I, Bermo vide his order dated 11.06.2004 had directed the petitioner to supply electricity and water in the premises of respondent no.4 on payment of charges till disposal of the suit. Thus, if respondent no.4 wants to take electrical connection directly from the respondents then in my view he is require to take prior permission from the Court. It is also worth mentioning that even though aforesaid orders of the court have been enclosed by the petitioner in its objection, respondent no.2 and 3 had not given any heed to it and gave electrical connection to respondent no.4. This shows that they have done so with some ulterior motive, which cant not be expected from a public servant.

¶26

10. It further appears that respondent nos. 2 and 3 had not properly checked the application-form filed by respondent no.4. As noticed above, in the said application through respondent no.4 had not given required informations, which are necessary for granting electrical connection as peer regulation framed by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory

¶27

-5-

¶28

Commission, but inspite of that respondent no.2 gave electric connection to respondent no.4. Thus, in my view, the respondent no.2 had committed serious illegality in discharge of his official duty.

¶29

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I direct the Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Ranchi to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against respondent no.2 and take action against him in accordance with law.

¶30

12. Since, I have come to the conclusion that respondent no.4 with a view to circumvent the various orders of the Court had filed an application for supply of electricity, suppressing all the material facts, therefore, he is not entitled to get separate electrical connection from Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigal Limited.

¶31

13 . In view of the discussions made above, I allow this writ application and direct the Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigal Limited, Ranchi to disconnect the electrical connection of respondent no.4 immediately.

¶32

( Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶33

Raman/

Indian Explosive Limited through Its Constituted Attorney Bijay Kumar Dubey v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Explosive Limited through Its Constituted Attorney Bijay Kumar Dubey v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Pankaj Steels through One of Its Partner Pankaj Bagaria Vs Electricity Board

Ms Atibir Indusries Co. Ltd. Vs Damodar Valley Corporation

M S Bir Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Damodar Valley Corporation

Ms Lord Balajee Manufacturing Steel P Ltd. through One of Its Directors Sri Sharad Poddar Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman Ors.

M/S Jmt Auto Ltd. Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

M/S Bhalotia Engineering Works Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo