Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Y.R.Meena, D.A.Mehta
TORRENT POWER A.E.G.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SHREEJI (RAKHIAL) COMMERCIAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. - Respondent
C. A. 4859 Of 2006
Decided On : 05/01/2006
Electricity connection - Refusal to grant - Outstanding dues of erstwhile owner - Non-payment - Sustainability - Scope of.
Head Note :
Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003) - Sections 2(15) and (70), 43, 50 and 56 - Electricity Supply Code - Regulations 4.1.11, 4.1.16, 4.1.17, 4.8.1, 4.8.3 and 8.7.5 - Electric connection - Refusal to grant - Outstanding dues of erstwhile owner - Non-payment - Sustainability - Scope of - On a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act alongwith regulations it is not possible to accept the case of the appellant company that respondent before getting power connection has to pay the outstanding dues which were due from erstwhile owner of premises upto the date of disconnection - Contention that under the Act of 2003 electricity company is now required to supply power to premises and not to a person, therefore, if the premises are transferred the transferee is liable to clear the dues of transferor is also without any force and substance and cannot be accepted - Under the provisions of the Act supply of electricity power can be disconnected where any person neglects to pay any charges for electricity - In fact premises cannot be consumer and, therefore, the stand of the appellant electricity company does not merit acceptance - it goes without saying that only a person can be the consumer viz. the user of the electricity power and premises divorced of a person cannot be user of the electricity power supply - The regulations of the supply code also do not carry the case of appellant company any further - For the reasons no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge.
Held :
On a conjoint reading of the provisions it is not possible to accept the case of the respondent-Company. Section 43 of the Act deals with "duty to supply power on request". Under Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Act it is provided that on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises the distribution licensee is bound to give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month of the receipt of the application for such supply. The emphasis on behalf of the respondent-company that the electricity is required to be supplied "to such premises" is misplaced. In the first instance, the application is by the owner or occupier of any premises, and hence, the phrase "such premises" takes meaning from the preceding portion viz. owner or occupier of the premises. This becomes abundantly clear when one reads the definition of the term "consumer" which talks of any person who is supplied electricity and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity. In other words, the consumer is one who receives, or is supplied electric power and the premises are of the consumer. Section 2 (70) which defines "supply" specifically states that supply means sale of electricity to a consumer. The definition does not talk of supply of electricity to the premises. [Para 7]
When one proceeds to read Section 56 of the Act in the aforesaid backdrop, it is apparent that supply of electric power can be dis-connected where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity in respect of supply which was made to the said person. Section 56 of the Act does not talk of any premises neglecting to pay any charge for electricity. In fact premises cannot be a consumer and, therefore, the stand of the electricity company does not merit acceptance. It goes without saying that only a person can be the consumer viz. the user of the electricity power and premises, divorced of a person, cannot be user of the electricity power supply. [Para 8]
Law Laid Down :
Premises cannot be consumer - It is only a person who can be the consumer of power supply.
Case Law Analysis :
M/s. Isha Marbles vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, 1995 (2) SCC 648;; Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Jaisal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., in Letters Patent Appeal No. 691 of 2003, decided on 18.07.2005.-Distinguished
Conclusion :
In the circumstances and for the reasons stated no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge.
Case Referred :
Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. vs. Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2004 (3) SCC 587 = 2004 (2) GLR 1363.
Decided in Favour of :
Respondent
Appeal Dismissed
( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal challenges judgment and order dated 31st August, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in Special civil Application No 15545 of 2004 The appellant herein is the original respondent and the respondent is the original petitioner Hereinafter, for the sake ot convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their respective description in the petition
( 2 ) THE petitioner approached the respondent-Electricity Company for grant of electric connection The respondent-Electricity Company, instead of granting the connection, called upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues amounting to Rs 12,30,16,068-54 which were due from the erstwhile owner ot the premises up to the date of dis-connection i e 15th July, 1999 The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said claim and the refusal to grant electric connection by way ot a writ petition which came to be allowed by the learned single Judge vide the impugned judgment
( 3 ) THE respondent-Electricity Company in the present appeal has assailed the impugned judgment principally on the ground that the learned single Judge has erred in placing reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in case of - (i) M/s Isha Marbles v Bihar State Electricity Board, 1995 (2) SCC 648, (n) Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd v Gujarat Inns Pvt Ltd and Ors , 2004 (3) SCC 587 2004 (2) GLR 1363 (SC), and (in) order dated 21-10-2004 made by this Court in Special Civil Application No 2162 of 2003 That the said decisions were rendered under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910 (old Act), while the present case is governed by the provisions of the electricity Act, 2003 (the Act) In this connection the learned Counsel appearing on behalf ot the respondent-appellant has placed reliance on the provisions ot sec 2 (15) which defines "consumer", Sec 2 (70) which defines "supply", Sec 43 which deals with "duty to supply on request", Sec 56 which deals with "disconnection of supply in default of payment" of the Act to submit that the entire scheme has undergone change and Electricity Company is now required to supply power to premises and not to a person There tore, according to the learned Counsel, even if the premises are transferred the transferee is liable to clear the dues ot the transferor He has also placed reliance on provisions ot sec 50 of the Act which permits the State Commission to specify the Electricity supply Code, and invited attention to Regulations 41. 11. 41 16. 4 1. 17, 4. 8. 1, 4. 8. 3 and 8. 7. 5 of the Electricity Supply Code to contend that on a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Regulations the Electricity company is entitled to recover the outstanding arrears even in a case where the ownership is transferred because the connection is granted to "the premises" and not to the owner or the occupier of the premises.
( 4 ) IN support of the submissions, reliance has been placed on an unreported order made by this Court on 18th July, 2005 in Letters Patent appeal No. 691 of 2003 in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board v. Jaisal Silk mills Pvt. Ltd.
( 5 ) UNDISPUTED facts are that the petitioner purchased the property of Raipur manufacturing Company Limited, which went into liquidation and was woundup by order dated 15th October, 2001 in Company Petition No. 114 of 2001. It is an admitted fact that the property was purchased at a public auction held and confirmed by the Company Court vide order dated 2nd December, 2002. In pursuance thereto the petitioner made an application on 13th August, 2004 to the respondent-Electricity Company for supply of power. Therefore, on the date of the application both the petitioner and the respondent-Company were admittedly governed by the provisions of the Act. Hence, the only issue that requires consideration is whether the respondent-Electricity Company is entitled to call upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner of the premises in light of the pro
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
