Allowed

Lalaram Sharma Son of Late Shri Kishan Sharma v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

Rajasthan HC7 May 2024SAW/190/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates supply of electricity to owners or occupiers. Restraining JVVNL from issuing connections was deemed *dehors* the Act. Appeals by JVVNL and other appellants were allowed, quashing previous restraints.

What did the court decide?

Quashed restriction on granting electricity; allowed special appeals for grant of electricity connection to appellants.

Lalaram Sharma Son of Late Shri… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 171/2024

¶4

Smt. Sushila Devi Wife Of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Plot No. 35, Shribalaji Vihar, Heerapath Road, Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

¶8

The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶9

Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 118/2024

¶13

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur- 302005 Through Its Authorised Signatory Shri Harish Bijarnia Xen Cd-Vi Jvvnl Sanganer

¶14

----Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

Anant Kasliwal S/o Shri Ram Chandra Kasliwal, R/o Sb14, Bhawani Singh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 301015

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶18

The Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 173/2024

¶21

Shakuntala Sharma W/o Shri Ravikant Sharma D/o Shri Lala Ram Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Shribalaji Vihar, Heerapath Road, Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur .

¶22

----Appellant

¶23

Versus

¶24

Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti

¶25

(2 of 7)

¶26

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB]

¶27

[SAW-171/2024]

¶28

Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

¶29

The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶30

Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 190/2024

¶33

Lalaram Sharma Son Of Late Shri Kishan Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Plot No. 69, Shri Balaji Vihar, Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶34

----Appellant

¶35

Versus

¶36

Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

¶37

The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶38

Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

¶39

----Respondents

¶40

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Adv.with Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pashupati Nath Bhandari, Adv.with Ms. Gaurika Bhansali, Adv.
For Respondents	:	Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Kartikeya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arafat Hussain, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Samant, Adv. through VC with Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bipin Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Naman Pareek, Adv.

¶41

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Judgment

07/05/2024

Reportable

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB]

¶46

[SAW-171/2024]

¶47

(3 of 7)

¶48

Appellants- Sushila Devi, JVVNL and Shakuntala Sharma have preferred these appeals aggrieved by Order dated 03.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby misc. application alongwith the connected Writ Petitions for release of electricity connection to premises situated in Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme of the Jaipur Development Authority was rejected on the ground that the same would be against the tenet of planned development of Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme, as directed by Coordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court.

¶49

The present appellants have preferred writ petition seeking release of electricity connection but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 03.11.2023.

¶50

It is contended by counsel for the appellants that learned Single Judge in Sugan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and connected cases: 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2070 had disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 15.07.2013. In the relief clause of the writ petition, it was mentioned that till the allotment is made in favour of the petitioner or others, respondent is directed not to release the electricity connection. This is to avoid possibility of further construction without allotment of plot. In case of any difficulty in carrying out the directions aforesaid or otherwise, affected parties would be at liberty to make appropriate application before this court for clarification/ modification. It is also contended that the appellants moved an application for clarification/ modification of the order.

¶51

It is contended by Mr. P.N. Bhandari, Adv. that the order passed by learned Single Judge was contrary to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (herein referred as ‘the Act’) and no orders

¶52

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB]

¶53

[SAW-171/2024]

¶54

(4 of 7)

¶55

could have been passed restraining the JVVNL from releasing electricity connections. It is contended that this fact was brought to the notice of learned Single Judge by moving an application for modification/ clarification, but the same has been dismissed without considering the statutory provisions contained in Section 43 of the Act.

¶56

It is contended by Mr. Prahlad Sharma appearing for the appellants that the duty envisaged under Section 43 of the Act is mandatory in nature and hence, connection cannot be withheld and the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition. In this regard, he has placed reliance on Chandu Khamaru Vs. Smt. Nayan Malik & Ors. 2012(1) WLC (SC) Civil 84. 6. It is contended by Mr. Bipin Gupta- learned counsel for JVVNL that any person who is in occupation of any premises is entitled to get the electricity connection under Section 43 of the Act. In this regard reliance has been placed on Dilip (Dead) through L.Rs. vs. Satish and Ors.: 2022/INSC/570 ; Laxmi Ram Pawar Vs. Sitabai Balu Dhotre and Ors.: AIR 2011 SC 450 ; K.C. Niman Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.: 2023 (8) SCALE 564 , Abhimanyu Mazumdar Vs. Superintending Engineer: AIR 2011 Calcutta 64 ; Amarendra Singh Vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors.: AIR 2008 Calcutta 66 ; Tarun Dey Vs. Andaman & Nicobar Administration: 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 5582 ; Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Jayanthi Sundhar & Ors.: AIR 2015 Madras 197 ; Sudharshan Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3720 ; Om Prakash Vs. Balkar Singh: 2022 SCC OnLIne

¶57

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB]

¶58

[SAW-171/2024]

¶59

(5 of 7)

¶60

P&H 3733 ; Kanubhai Jethabahi Rohit & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.: AIR 2018 Gujarat 21 .

¶61

It is contended by Mr. P.N. Bhandari that in one of the writ petition which was filed before the learned Single Judge, directions were given to convene meeting and the meeting was convened by the Chief Secretary, in which JDA Secretary, Managing Director of JVVNL, Principal Secretary of UDH and Principal Secretary Energy & Discom were present, wherein it was observed that because of restrictions in giving electricity connections, theft of electricity is taking place. It was also observed that not giving electricity connection is not in accordance with law and withholding connection is dehors the Act.

¶62

Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State contends that the stand of the State before the learned Single Judge was that denying the supply of electricity to residents of PRN Scheme who do not possess lease deed/patta, would not be in consonance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2013.

¶63

Learned counsel appearing for JDA contends that the present case has a chequered history to stop illegal construction in PRN Scheme. It is contended that learned Single Judge has passed the order restraining the JVVNL from issuing connections. He, however, not in a position to explain as to why withholding the connection to stop illegal construction is necessary when JDA is having sufficient resources to stop illegal constructions.

¶64

We have considered the contentions.

¶65

Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under”-

¶66

“43. Duty to supply on request.– (1 ) [Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution] licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to

¶67

(6 of 7)

¶68

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB]

¶69

[SAW-171/2024]

¶70

such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:

¶71

Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new substations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission:

¶72

Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.

¶73

[Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, “application” means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.] (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in subsection (1):

¶74

Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.

¶75

(3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default.”

¶76

It is the mandate of Section 43 of the Act that on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, the Board is required to give supply of electricity to such premises within one month after receipt of the application requesting such supply. Admittedly, the appellants in these case have applied to the JVVNL and stand of the JVVNL is also that there is theft of electricity as there is restraining order passed by learned Single Judge, whereby JVVNL has been restrained from giving electricity connection which is resulting in huge losses to JVVNL. It is also contended that JVVNL is duty bound by the statue to provide electricity connection to the owner or occupier of the premises.

¶77

(7 of 7)

¶78

[SAW-171/2024]

¶79

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB]

¶80

We are of the considered view that restraining JVVNL from issuance of connection would be against the statutory provisions contained in Section 43 of the Act. Learned Single Judge has clearly erred in rejecting the application filed by the JVVNL for modification of the order. Learned Single Judge has also erred in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants, wherein they have claimed relief of grant of electricity connection. 14. Consequently, Special Appeal Writ No. 118/2024 filed by the JVVNL deserve to be and is accordingly, allowed. The restriction imposed by the Court with regard to grant of electricity connection is dehors Section 43 of the Act, hence quashed. JVVNL is free to issue electric connection in accordance with Law.

¶81

Special Appeal Writ No. 171/2024, 173/2024 and 190/2024 filed by the appellants are also allowed. They are entitled to get electricity connection in view of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in accordance with law.

¶82

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶83

A copy of this order be placed in connected files.

¶84

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶85

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶86

CHANDAN /141-144

Lalaram Sharma Son of Late Shri Kishan Sharma v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalaram Sharma Son of Late Shri Kishan Sharma v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

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

Rajasthan Para Medical Council Vs Sunil Kumar S/O Shri Mithu Ram

The Rajasthan Para Medical Council Vs Rahul Garg S/O Shri Mangilal Garg

Rajasthan Para Medical Council Vs Tarun Kumar S/O Jay Singh

Smt. Sushila Devi Wife of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

The Union of India Vs Nathulal S/O Shri Ramjilal

M/S Satnam Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of Rajasthan