Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 743
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
M/S. Banke Bihari Crushers & Pole Pvt. Ltd – Petitioner
Versus
Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.- Respondents
W.P.(C) No.1271 of 2014
Decided On : 16-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, Advocate, Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate
No liability of the predecessor-in-title can be imposed upon the petitioner for payment of electricity dues.
Headnote:
Electricity Connection - Writ Petition - Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005, Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2015 - The court discussed the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2005 and 2015, particularly Clause 5.5 and Clause 6.10, and their interpretation in light of the judgment in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board (1995) 2 SCC 648. The court held that no liability of the predecessor-in-title can be imposed upon the petitioner for payment of electricity dues, and the respondents were liable to provide the fresh electricity connection to the petitioner. The impugned order was quashed, and the JUVNL was directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a fresh electrical connection for its plant and lights for safety purposes, which was refused by the respondents. The petitioner had purchased a piece of land and entered into a lease agreement to set up a plant, and had made a substantial investment. The respondents demanded outstanding dues from the previous owner, which the petitioner contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no liability of the predecessors-in-title can be imposed on the petitioner for payment of electricity dues. The impugned order was quashed, and the JUVNL was directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal of the electrical connection, the demand for outstanding dues from the previous owner, and the applicability of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, particularly Clause 5.5 and Clause 6.10, and the judgment in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board (1995) 2 SCC 648 to hold that no liability of the predecessor-in-title can be imposed upon the petitioner for payment of electricity dues.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the JUVNL was directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JUVNL.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant fresh electrical connection of 40 HP under LTIS category for running its plant and another connection of 1KW under CS category for lights for safety purpose which was refused. Further prayer is made for quashing the letter no.109 dated 06.02.2014, issued by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Govindpur, Dhanbad by which he has asked the petitioner to pay an outstanding dues of Rs.1,43,095/-and 43,023/-respectively in respect of two connections of one M/s Ashoka Briquette Industries so as to enable to grant electrical connection to the petitioner since the petitioner has no connection.
3. The narrow facts of this case is that there are two directors in the petitioner-company namely Sri Brij Mohan Agarwal and Sri Deepak Goel. Sri Brij Mohan Agarwal is one of the Directors of the petitioner company had purchased a piece of land from Bajrang Bansal by sale deed dated 12.01.2007 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is further stated in the aforesaid deed that Sri Bajrang Bansal had originally purchased this land by registered deed of sale deed bearing no.4554 dated 09.09.1997 from one Smt. Usha Devi who was a proprietor of one M/s Ashok Briquette Industries. The property in question at the time of purchased by the Director was vacant plot with a boundary wall without any structure whatsoever. The petitioner company namely Sri Banke Bihari Crushers and pole Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 13.01.2011.
The petitioner company entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the land as well as one of the Director of the petitioner company, Sri Brij Mohan Agarwala to set up a fly-ash bricks plant in the said plot and for the said purpose entered into a lease agreement as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
The petitioner company has made a substantial investment to the extent of almost Rs.25.0 Lakhs. Thereafter, the petitioner company applied for two electrical connections i.e. a load of 40 HP under LTIS category for running plant and another connection of 1 KW under CS category for the purpose of putting on few lights in the night for the safety purpose as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also deposited the requisite fees as required as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
All of a sudden, the petitioner company received a letter dated 06.02.2014 bearing no.109, written by the Assistant Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Govindpur, Dhanbad by which the Director of the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.1,43,095.00/-and Rs.43,023.00/-which were outstanding on account of one M/s. Ashoka Briquette Industries and it was further stated that only after making the payment of the outstanding dues the electrical connection can be given to the petitioner.
Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
4. When this matter was taken up on 16.05.2014, by way of interim order passed by this Court on the fair submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, observed that there may not be any objection on the part of the authority of JUVNL to give fresh electric connection of 40 HP and 1 KW within ten day from the deposit of the said amount, but that deposit would be subject to result of the case, and the matter was adjourned for another date.
5. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner deposited the amount in question before the respondent-JUVNL, thereafter, the electric connection has been provided to the petitioner company.
Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned letter on the ground that author of this letter has said tha
