Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM
S.M. Amarchand Sowcar
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
S.A. No. 2026 of 1986
Decided On :Decided on : 23-12-1998
ELECTRICITY ACT - DISCONNECTION OF SERVICE - LIMITATION - SECTION 24 - TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY - CLAUSE 40 (B) - DECLARATION - SECTION 34 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - BRUTUM FULMEN PRINCIPLE - The right to disconnect the supply is independent of the Board's right to recover the dues. The limitation, which is applicable to the Board for filing a suit is irrelevant and hence the objection taken by the consumer cannot be sustained.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a consumer, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the demand made by the defendants, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, for Rs. 2,500.95 was illegal and ultra vires, and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the plaintiff's service connection. The plaintiff contended that the demand was barred by limitation and that the service connection could not be disconnected for non-payment of charges in another service connection.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the demand by the Electricity Board was sustainable and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the prayer for injunction. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of declaration in the absence of a consequential relief for injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the demand made by the Electricity Board was sustainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the prayer for injunction? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of declaration in the absence of a consequential relief for injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the demand by the Electricity Board was sustainable because: - Clause 40 (b) of the Terms and Conditions of supply allowed the Board to disconnect the other connections in the name of the consumer for non-payment of dues relating to one of the connections. - Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which allows the licensee to discontinue the supply to the consumer who neglects to pay the charges, does not impose any time limit or restrictions on the board to disconnect the supply. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the prayer for injunction because: - The right to disconnect the supply is independent of the Board's right to recover the dues. - The limitation, which is applicable to the Board for filing a suit is irrelevant and hence the objection taken by the consumer cannot be sustained. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of declaration in the absence of a consequential relief for injunction because: - Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows for a prayer for declaration without any further relief, is restricted to cases where any person claims to be entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property. - The present suit is not a suit where any prayer is made for a declaration to any legal character or to any right as to any property. - The relief of declaration is to be granted only at the discretion of the Court, on being satisfied with the necessity to grant such a relief. - In the present case, the relief of declaration would only be futile, known discretion can be exercised in favor of grant of such a decree.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal.
K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram on 27. 2. 1986 in A. S. No. 1 of 1984, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif at kancheepuram on 5. 5. 1983 in O. S. No. 807 of 1981.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the present second appeal.
( 3 ) THE suit is filed for declaration that the demand made by the defendants for Rs. 2,500. 95 in their letters dated 23. 7. 1981 and 15. 8. 1981 are illegal and ultra vires and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the plaintiffs service connection No. 249. According to the plaintiff he is the owner of the premises No. 254a, raja Street, Wallajabad and he purchased it from one Deivasigamani Achari by a registered sale deed dated 24. 6. 1967 and ever since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the property as the owner. The vendor was having an electric service connection in S. C. 696, in the said house for his machine and after he sold the house, he vacated the house and also removed the machinery. Thereafter the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the house and paying the charges. There is no machinery in house No. 254a, after 24. 6. 1967. The plaintiff is living in his residential house No. 46, Raja Street, Wallajabad and this house has a separate electric connection in S. C. No. 249 and he is paying the usual consumption charges. While so, the plaintiff was surprised to receive a letter dated 23. 7. 1981 from the second defendant claiming a sum of Rs. 2,500. 95 due by the plaintiffs vendor for the period of January, 1970 to June, 1976 and stating that the said sum has to be paid in instalments. The plaintiff received the bill dated 15. 8. 1981 claiming the first instalment of Rs. 400. 95 alongwith other consumption charges and threatening to disconnect the service of the plaintiff for non payment of the said bill amount. According to the plaintiff the entire demand was illegal and baseless. He also pleaded that the claim from January. 1971 was barred by limitation. He also further contended that the service connection No. 249 cannot be disconnected for non payment of charges in service connection No. 696 and under the guise of demand, service connection No. 249 cannot be disconnected. Hence this suit.
( 4 ) WHILE opposing the said pleadings, the tamil Nadu Electricity Board contended that it was true that a notice was issued to the plaintiff demanding a sum of Rs. 2,500. 25. But the claim of the plaintiff that the Boards claim was barred by limitation was not correct. According to the defendants, the original owner was having two service connections and due to non payment of charges in S. C. No. 696 it was disconnected by the Board. The consumer was liable to pay annual minimum charges though the service connection was disconnected, till the consumer expresses his unwillingness or willingness to discontinue the supply of energy. There was no request from the service holder upto 1974-75. The agreement period was over and till that time also the defendants are entitled to claim annual minimum charges. Therefore the said sum as included in the bill in question, which was also standing in the name of Deivasigamani Achari, was maintainable. On 25. 7. 1981 itself the defendants had sent a letter to the service holder and a copy of the same to the plaintiff and the failure to respond to the said notice would entitle the defendants to disconnect the power supply. Since there is another life service, the claim of bar of limitation cannot be maintained. It is also further pleaded that the suit was barred under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
( 5 ) ON a consideration of said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the demand by the Electricity Board was sustainable and with the result the sui
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
