JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

The dispute in this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relates to denial by the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (‘NBPDCL’ for short) to give fresh electricity connection in favour of the petitioner in the house situate over holding No. 336/359, Khata No. 433, Plot No. 473, Ward No. 27, Majhaulia Chak Abdul Wahid, Muzaffarpur.

2. Admittedly, the house was in the name of one Sita Devi, in whose name there was an existing electricity connection. Said Sita Devi is no more. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 7 is the daughter of late Sita Devi.

3. It is the petitioner's case that she is the occupier of the said premises under a registered sale deed executed by late Sita Devi, nearly one and half months before her demise. In a judgment rendered on 23.11.2019, by the learned Sub Judge-XIV, Muzaffarpur, in Title Suit No. 371 of 2011 (Poonam Prakash Vs. Anuradha Kumari and Ors.), the sale deed said to have been executed by late Sita Devi in the favour of the petitioner, has been declared to be fraudulent and accordingly, the same has been set aside. A copy of the judgment in Title Suit No. 371 of 2011 has been brought on record by way of Annexure-6 to the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the NBPDCL. It is the petitioner’s case that a First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court registered as F.A. No. 27 of 2020, which is pending before this Court. The date of death of Sita Devi has been mentioned as 15.03.2010 in the judgment of the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 371 of 2011, though the date has not specifically been mentioned anywhere in the writ petition. It is the petitioner's case that there was electricity bill due to the tune of Rs. 44,767/-(Forty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Seven) against the connection in favour of Sita Devi because of which the electricity supply was disconnected on 07.01.2020. It has been stated in the writ petition that on an assurance given by the officials under NBPDCL, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand) against the said arrears, for reconnection of electricity supply, and accordingly, the connection was resumed but again it has been disconnected on 05.02.2020 on account of the remaining dues of Rs. 21,813/-(Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirteen). It is the petitioner’s case that the electricity supply was not disconnected because of the aforesaid due amount, rather at the instance of respondent No. 7, who had claimed the title over the premises based on the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 371 of 2011.

4. It would be apt to notice here that, it is the petitioner's own case as set up in the present writ application that, she did not apply for a new electricity connection soon after the execution of the sale deed in her favour nor after the death of Sita Devi in 2010 itself. The application which the petitioner has made for electricity connection is dated 07.03.2020; evidently, more than a year after the judgment and decree was passed in Title Suit No. 371 of 2011.

5. It is the petitioner’s case that, since the premises in question is in her possession, which is evident from the judgment and decree of the title suit also, she is the occupier of the house and, therefore, she has a right to get electricity connection.

6. By a communication dated 22.06.2020, made to the petitioner by the Junior Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Maripur, the petitioner has been informed that her application for giving fresh electricity connection dated 13.02.2020, shall be considered after obtaining guidelines from the headquarters. There is another communication dated 15.03.2020, made by the Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Maripur, addressed to the petitioner asking her to produce documents in support of her title over the premises to ensure providing electricity connection.

7