DESU was not bound to consider the plaintiff's representations before issuing the show-cause notice, but its failure to consider the representations after the issuance of the notice violated principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) I do not propose to take long. I should not, for,the situation is still in a state of flux and it would be would be too hazardousto venture into the specifics. What is required at present is to take a prima fadeview and this is precisely what I propose to do. However, first a brief resumeof the facts.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has been granted an Industrial Power (LT) connectionfor small power consumers which is being used for the purpose of manufacturing of paints being carried on by the, company M/s. U. K. Paints (1) India.

( 3 ) ONLY on 8/01/1992 the plaintiff a writ petition had obtained an orderstaying disconnection of supply of electricity due to non-payment of the billstreating the said connection as Large Industrial Power connection. On January 10, a large contingent the employees of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter called the Undertaking) swooped on the premises and made certaininspections. Alarmed by the action the plaintiff addressed a latter datedjanuary 11, 1992 to the Undertaking requesting a joint inspection. There wasno response. However, on or about January 17, the plaintiff received whatpurported to be the record of inspection carried out on January 10 alleging inshort, theft of electricity and tampering of service line. On January 23, theplaintiff made a representation to the Undertaking refuting the allegations andalleging malafides and praying again for a joint inspection. The Undertakinghowever, lodged a First Information Report with the Police and served a 24hours show-cause notice cum-disconnection notice. This was on February I,1922. On February 3 came this s suit before the Court, The prayer of theplaintiff was for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Undertakingfrom disconnecting the supply of electricity. It was accompanied by an application under Order 39 for the grant of ad interim injunction order. Noticeswere issued for 4/02/1992 when I was informed that supply of electricityhad been disconnected. This was followed by two applications, one for theamendment of the plaint and the other under Order 39 Rule I seeking restoration of the supply of electricity. It is the later application which is thebone of contention and which has led to this order.

( 4 ) HAS the plaintiff made out a case for restoration of electric supply ?it was contended by Mrs. Ahlawat appearing for the defendants that it beinga fool-proof case of theft of electricity, the relief sought by the plaintiff deserved outright rejection. Mr. V. P. Singh Counsel for the plaintiff, however, tookme. through Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the documents onthe record and contended that no case had been made out showing the commission of theft and in support sought to draw force from the judgment of thesupreme Court in Jaggannath Singh v. Ramaswamy AIR 1966 SC 849. How ever, on my part, I refuse to be drawn into the controversy, at least for thepresent. A First Information Report stands lodged. Investigation is to takeits own course. Criminal trial may or may not commence. As for me I am ill-equipped, at least at present to return a finding of guilt or even to assumethe accusation as correct. Would it not require a full-fledged trial ? And, itis in this context that Jagannath Singh s case becomes clearly distinguishable,for, in that case the consumer had already been convicted under the Indianpenal Code. We, on the other hand, are still at a stage where allegations arebeing buried by one side and denied by the other. This being the position, Ido feel that the relief sought cannot be denied merely on the ground that theundertaking is crying wolf, and, in support, I seek to draw force from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Ajantairon and Steel Company (Pvt.) Ltd. AIR 1990 SC 882.

( 5 ) COMING to the show-cause notice, it was argued that since represen the tations had been made to Undertaking giving plaintiff s version and denying the correctness