The court ruled that the learned Single Judge's order restraining electricity connections was contrary to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which mandates supply upon application.

JUDGMENT :

Appellants-Sushila Devi, JVVNL and Shakuntala Sharma have preferred these appeals aggrieved by Order dated 03.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby misc. application alongwith the connected Writ Petitions for release of electricity connection to premises situated in Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme of the Jaipur Development Authority was rejected on the ground that the same would be against the tenet of planned development of Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme, as directed by Co-ordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court.

2. The present appellants have preferred writ petition seeking release of electricity connection but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 03.11.2023.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that learned Single Judge in Sugan Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and connected cases: 2013 SCC Online Raj 2070 had disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 15.07.2013. In the relief clause of the writ petition, it was mentioned that till the allotment is made in favour of the petitioner or others, respondent is directed not to release the electricity connection. This is to avoid possibility of further construction without allotment of plot. In case of any difficulty in carrying out the directions aforesaid or otherwise, affected parties would be at liberty to make appropriate application before this court for clarification/ modification. It is also contended that the appellants moved an application for clarification/ modification of the order.

4. It is contended by Mr. P.N. Bhandari, Adv. that the order passed by learned Single Judge was contrary to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (herein referred as 'the Act') and no orders could have been passed restraining the JVVNL from releasing electricity connections. It is contended that this fact was brought to the notice of learned Single Judge by moving an application for modification/ clarification, but the same has been dismissed without considering the statutory provisions contained in Section 43 of the Act.

5. It is contended by Mr. Prahlad Sharma appearing for the appellants that the duty envisaged under Section 43 of the Act is mandatory in nature and hence, connection cannot be withheld and the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition. In this regard, he has placed reliance on Chandu Khamaru v. Smt. Nayan Malik & Ors. 2012(1) WLC (SC) Civil 84.

6. It is contended by Mr. Bipin Gupta-learned counsel for JVVNL that any person who is in occupation of any premises is entitled to get the electricity connection under Section 43 of the Act. In this regard reliance has been placed on Dilip (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Satish and Ors.: 2022/INSC/570; Laxmi Ram Pawar v. Sitabai Balu Dhotre and Ors.: AIR 2011 SC 450; K.C. Niman v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.: 2023 (8) Scale 564, Abhimanyu Mazumdar v. Superintending Engineer: AIR 2011 Calcutta 64; Amarendra Singh v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors.: AIR 2008 Calcutta 66; Tarun Dey v. Andaman & Nicobar Administration: 2018 SCC Online Cal 5582; Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors. v. Jayanthi Sundhar & Ors.: AIR 2015 Madras 197; Sudharshan Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.: 2022 SCC Online Del 3720; Om Prakash v. Balkar Singh: 2022 SCC Online P&H 3733; Kanubhai Jethabahi Rohit & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.: AIR 2018 Gujarat 21.

7. It is contended by Mr. P.N. Bhandari that in one of the writ petition which was filed before the learned Single Judge, directions were given to convene meeting and the meeting was convened by the Chief Secretary, in which JDA Secretary, Managing Director of JVVNL, Principal Secretary of UDH and Principal Secretary Energy & Discom were present, wherein it was observed that because of restrictions in giving electricity connections, theft of electricity is taking place. It was also observed that not giving electricity connection is not in accordance with law and withholding connection is dehorns the Act.

8.