A party must have standing to deny an electricity connection to another party based on outstanding amounts at previous premises.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 25.4.2022 (Annex.12) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been rejected and order dated 2.5.2022 (Annex.13), whereby, the petition filed by respondent no.1 has been accepted.

2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that property owned by petitioner was let out inter alia to respondent no.1. On account of certain vigilance inquiry, the bill amounting to Rs.12 lakh & odd was issued qua the premises, wherein it was specifically indicated that the property was in possession of respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 vacated the premises and shifted his factory at some other place and applied for grant of electricity connection, which was denied by the respondent - JVVNL on account of the fact that amount pursuant to the vigilance inquiry was due with respondent no.1.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.1 approached the Permanent Lok Adalat.

4. During pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner made an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat seeking impleadment, inasmuch as, in case, the application filed by respondent no.1 before Permanent Lok Adalat was accepted, the liability, which pertain to working of respondent no.1, would have to be borne by the petitioner, however, the Permanent Lok Adalat by its order dated 25.4.2022 (Annex.12), rejected the application for impleadment and after few days, allowed the petition filed by respondent no.1 and directed the JVVNL to accord electricity connection to respondent no.1.

5. It is submitted that rejection of the application by the Permanent Lok Adalat for impleadment was not justified and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside along with the final order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat.

6. It is further submitted that as the amount pertaining to the petitioner’s premises, wherein, respondent no.1 was working, was due, till such time that the payment was not made by respondent no.1, the electricity connection at the new premises could not have been granted to respondent no.1 and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 made submissions that, insofar as, seeking of electricity connection is concerned, which was denied by the department, the petitioner has no locus stadi and his application under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been rightly rejected and consequently, against the final order, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance.

8. Learned counsel appearing for JVVNL made submissions that after passing of the order by the Permanent Lok Adalat, connection has been given to respondent no.1 and qua the said order, no challenge has been laid by the JVVNL.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

10. A bare perusal of the entire sequence of events clearly indicates that the dispute pertains between the petitioner and respondent no.1 pertaining to the electricity bill, which has been raised pertaining to the premises purportedly on account of the vigilance raid conducted by JVVNL, while respondent no.1 is contesting his liability to make payment, the petitioner is seeking to hold the respondent no.1 liable based on the fact that he was in possession of the premises at the relevant time.

11. The respondent no.1 in the petition, which was filed by him before the Permanent Lok Adalat, has questioned the action of the JVVNL in denying the connection at a new place based on the outstanding at the previous place. Qua the said dispute, apparently, the petitioner had no locus stadi so as to deny the electricity connection to respondent no.1 and, therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner.

12. Once the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner was rejected, the Permanent Lok Adalat therea