A Magistrate's order under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be used to restrain a licensee from disconnecting electricity supply for non-payment of dues, as this would be in contravention of the statutory right of the licensee under Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

ANWAR AHMAD, J.

1. The petitioner in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, with its head office at 14, Old Court House Street, Calcutta, and local office at Dumri Road, Mazaffarpur. It is carrying on the business of generating, distributing, transmitting and supplying electrical energy to the different consumers of Mazaffarpur town. The Municipality of Mazaffarpur is one of the biggest consumers of electricity inasmuch as the petitioner supplies electrical energy to the street lamps and water-supply system, both under the control and supervision of Muzaffarpur Municipality, on payment of consumption charges to the petitioner every month.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the Municipality of Muzaffarpur is a habitual defaulter and the amount of dues against the Municipality have by this date swollen to more than four lacs. As the Special Officer of the Muzaffarpur Municipality, in spite of repeated reminders did not take care to pay off the dues, the petitioner served a notice on the Special Officer under Sec.24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 on the 24th October, 1968, asking him to pay up the dues otherwise the supply of electricity to the Municipality would be discontinued. Nothing was done by the Special Officer (opposite party No. 3) to make payment of the dues; on the contrary, a title suit (Title Suit No. 274 of 1968) was instituted by him on the 31st October, 1968 in the Court at Munsif I, Muzaffarpur, where in a permanent injunction against the petitioner was prayed for, restraining the petitioner from disconnecting the supply of electricity. An order of ad interim injunction was granted and it continued for more than two years but the suit itself was dismissed as not maintainable. Even after the dismissal of the suit efforts were made by opposite party No. 3 to get an order of stay under Order 41, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, staying disconnection of the supply of electricity to the petitioner but this also was rejected on the 25th January, 1971. The petitioner again served a notice under Sec.24 of the Indian Electricity Act but just thereafter a proceeding under Sec.144, Code of Criminal Procedure, was started against the Resident Engineer and the Director of the petitioner-company. The notice issued to them ran as follows:-

"Whereas from the report of the Officer I/C Town P. S. Muzaffarpur, it appears to me that you have either disconnected or (are) bent upon disconnecting the supply of electric energy to the Muzaffarpur water system and street lights for non-payment of dues of the Muzaffarpur Electric Supply Company by the Muzaffarpur Municipality which amounts to serious consequences from the point of endangering the life of the citizens of Muzaffarpur town and it will also pose serious law and order problem.

You are hereby restrained under Sec.144, Criminal Procedure Code from disconnecting the supply of electric energy to the Muzaffarpur water system and street lights. You are also directed to restore the electric energy if already disconnected. You are hereby directed to appear in person on 2-2-71 at 10.30 a. m. in the Court of the undersigned and to show cause as to why the rule should not be made absolute against you."

As would appear from the notice quoted above in the first instance, the petitioner was restrained under Sec.144, Code of Criminal Procedure "from disconnecting the supply of electric energy to the Muzaffarpur water system and street lights.

"By the second part of the notice the petitioner was directed "to restore the electric energy if already disconnected."

3. The case was argued at great length by Mr. K. D. Chatterji, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. P. Srivastava, Counsel for the Muzaffarpur Municipality (Opposite Party No. 3). It will not be necessary to refer to all the cases cited at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the parties. In the latter part of the notice quo