Allowed

Suresh Chaudhary v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Patna HC11 Apr 2014CWJC/181/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Patna High Court held that Clause 4.13 of the Supply Code need not be strictly enforced for a son of a deceased consumer seeking a fresh connection where coparcenary title is under litigation. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the application within three weeks subject to the pendency of the title suit.

What did the court decide?

The respondent authority is directed to reconsider the case afresh for grant of a fresh electric connection within three weeks, subject to the result of the pending title suit.

Suresh Chaudhary Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company… — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

	IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.181 of 2014 ======================================================
	Suresh Chaudhary Son Of Late Ram Chandra Chaudhary Resident Of Mohalla- Hasanpur, Chaitola Chauk, Mussalahpur, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Pvt. Ltd. through its Chairman- Cum-Managing Director, Vidut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer Electric Supply Circle (E), Patna 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Gulzarbagh, Patna 5. The Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Section Musallahpur, (PESU) East, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ======================================================
	CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER
3 11	-04-2014 Heard Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha learned counsel for
	the respondent Bihar State Power Holding Company Pvt. Ltd. (forshort “the Company”) and its officials.
	A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Company.
	The petitioner being one of the sons of late
	Ramchandra Chaudhary has filed the present writ application for
	quashing the communication dated 29.10.2013 issued by the
	respondent- Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Section,
	Musallahpur (PESU), as contained in Annexure-4. By the said

¶2

Patna High Court CWJC No.181 of 2014 (3) dt.11-04-2014

¶3

2 / 5

¶4

communication the application filed by the petitioner for fresh electric connection to the premises in question, which was initially held by his late father, was rejected primarily on the ground that the same was not supported by ownership certificate.

¶5

The parental house of the petitioner located on Khata no. 58, survey plot no. 100, holding no. 566/4504/577 under Mohalla Kadamkuan was running in the name of his mother. The petitioner and his brothers were residing therein. The electric connection earlier granted to the said premises was running in the name of the father of the petitioner who died in the year 2011. The said electric connection was disconnected by respondent on 7.9.2013 on the basis of an application filed by the wife of the younger brother of the petitioner. The petitioner, in such circumstances, applied for fresh electric connection which was considered and rejected by the impugned order/communication.

¶6

It has been submitted that the petitioner being one of the sons of his parents had an inherent and lawful interest and title over the subject land /property. In such circumstances, it is not required of him to enclose certificate/document of ownership or any lease document as provided under the relevant provision in the Supply Code. The brother of the petitioner had got

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.181 of 2014 (3) dt.11-04-2014

¶8

3 / 5

¶9

fraudulently a deed of gift created by his mother in the name of his wife and son. The petitioner and his elder brother have already filed a Title Suit for setting aside the said deed of gift giving rise to Title Suit No. 462 of 2012 which is pending consideration in the Court of competent jurisdiction. The respondents were, therefore, not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of fresh electric connection for the reasons stated in the impugned communication (Annexure-4). He submits that the respondents be directed to consider his case for grant of fresh connection which may abide by the result of the pending Title Suit between the sons of the deceased father (original consumer).

¶10

Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the Company , on the other hand, submits that until the petitioner is able to provide proof of occupancy or any other documents of title such as valid power of attorney/ lease deed/ rent agreement/ copy of allotment order etc. as required under Clause 4.13 of the Supply Code the respondents are unable to grant the application seeking fresh connection.

¶11

Having heard the parties, this Court finds that in a case where one of the sons is seeking fresh connection after the death of his father in whose name the electric connection was

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.181 of 2014 (3) dt.11-04-2014

¶13

4 / 5

¶14

granted the provisions contained in Section 4.13 of the Code would not be strictly enforced. There is no dispute that the petitioner is one of the sons of the consumer and is residing in the house/ property in question. He has a coparcenary interest/title in the property. The said interest/title of the petitioner is being disputed on account of a deed of gift said to have been executed by the mother of the petitioner in favour of the wife and son of the younger brother of the petitioner. Nonetheless, it is more than evident from the pleadings on record that the said matter is pending consideration before the Court at the instance of the petitioner and his elder brother. The deed of gift may take away the title and coparcenary right of the petitioner in the subject property but the same is under challenge before the Court.

¶15

Considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the reasons assigned in the order (Annexure-4) cannot be upheld for rejection of the application for grant of fresh electric connection. Having said so, this Court directs the concerned authority of the respondent Company to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of fresh electric connection which may be made subject to the result of the pending Title Suit between the parties. In doing so, the respondent Executive Engineer shall in no way be precluded

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.181 of 2014 (3) dt.11-04-2014

¶17

5 / 5

¶18

by the order contained in Annexure-4. Such consideration should be made and a decision be taken on the pending application of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶19

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶20

Shyam/-

Suresh Chaudhary v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chaudhary v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. 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

Shailendra Kumar Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jitendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pappu Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Bharti Choupal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kumari Rupa Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.