Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 2217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES – Appellant
Vs.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (ELECTRICITY), UT AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP No. 12700 of 2015 (OandM)
Decided on : 28-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Rajesh Garg, SrAdvocate assisted by Nimrata Shergill, Advocate
For the Respondent:Harkesh Manuja, Advocate
The refusal to grant electricity connection was lawful as per the requirements of clause 3.5(3)(a) of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations 2010.
Headnote:
Electricity Connection - Tenancy Dispute - Electricity Supply Code Regulation 2010 - Clause 3.5(3)(a)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the letter rejecting the request for release of electricity connection due to non-compliance with clause 3.5(3)(a) of Electricity Supply Code Regulation 2010.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the refusal to grant electricity connection was legal due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of clause 3.5(3)(a) of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations 2010.
Issues: Dispute over the nature of the rent agreement, possession interference, and refusal of electricity connection based on non-compliance with regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the refusal to grant electricity connection was lawful as per the requirements of clause 3.5(3)(a) of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations 2010.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the letter rejecting the request for release of electricity connection was dismissed.
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.
By filing this petition, the petitioner – M/s. Comfort Technologies has sought quashing of the letter dated 30.04.2015 (Annexure P-8), whereby, respondent No.1 – Engineering Department (Electricity) rejected the request of the petitioner for release of electricity connection, for the reasons as under :-
“1. Non-compliance of clause 3.5(3)(a) of Electricity Supply Code Regulation 2010 wherein it is specifically mentioned that in case of tenancy permission of landlord along with proof of ownership is required.
2. Rent agreement submitted by you is not valid on the date of submission of application which is expired on dated 30.04.2014.”
2. The facts as narrated in the petition are that vide rent agreement dated 21.5.2013 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 for taking on rent Bay Shop No. 391 Sector-44-D, Chandigarh for a period of 11 months commencing from 1.6.2013. It was stipulated therein that monthly water and electricity charges shall be paid by the lessee in addition to the lease amount.
3. Respondent No. 3 is son of respondent No. 2 and both are co-owners of the leased property to the extent of 50% each, but the rent agreement was between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 only.
4. Alleging that respondents No. 2 and 3 had interfered with the possession of the petitioner, he lodged DDRs on two separate occasions i.e., 30th October, 2013 and 2.12.2013. On the first occasion the matter was settled as the respondent No. 3 agreed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Pursuant to the second DDR also, no action was taken by the police treating it as a civil dispute between landlord and tenant for eviction from the shop. The petitioner also filed a civil suit No. 111/2014 for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the leased premises wherein a stay was granted till 5.3.2014.
5. Respondents No. 2 and 3 requested the Electricity Department to disconnect the electric connection, provided in the premises, which prompted the petitioner to move to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (Electricity), Chandigarh for restoration of the electricity connection. Initially vide order dated 24.12.2013, the Forum directed the Electricity Department to restore the electricity connection stating that the Department cannot violate the tenancy rights of an occupant in view of a valid written rent agreement between the parties. However, later vide order dated 31.12.2013, it directed the Department not to restore Electricity Supply to the petitioner. It was reasoned that the petitioner had not disclosed to it that respondents No. 2 and 3 had already terminated the contract of tenancy and that there was a police case pending.
6. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No. 8965 of 2014 seeking a direction for restoration of the electricity connection which was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.2014 by directing as under:--
"This Court has already secured the restoration of the electricity connection and the same shall continue till an appropriate decision is taken by the Ombudsman on an appeal that the petitioner may prefer. If such an appeal is filed, time taken by the petitioner before this Court in prosecuting the writ petition will be considered for exclusion while computing the period of limitation for preferring the appeal.
The Electricity Corporation is at liberty to take a fresh application from the petitioner and grant connection after taking appropriate indemnity form in the manner contemplated under the Rules in which event the petitioner may not require any redressal through an appeal to the Ombudsman.
Disposed of."
7. Thereafter, against the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, which was disposed of by passing order dated 17.3.2015 (Annexure P-6), the relevant part of which reads as under:--
"Based on the above, the
