Interpretation of provisions in the Supply Code and Supply Manual regarding the issuance of multiple domestic electricity connections in the same premises.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - The petitioner is allegedly the owner in possession of House No.B-1/418-419, situated in Village Mohalla Chaudrian, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. The petitioner is already having a domestic electricity connection. However, his grievance is that one Sukhjinder Kaur wd/o Gurmail Singh has also been issued a domestic electricity connection bearing No.PC 221324 in his premises. The petitioner made a complaint to the respondents to cancel the electricity connection issued in favour of Sukhjinder Kaur. Since the complaint of the petitioner has not been considered, therefore, he has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Clause 6.5 of the Supply Code, 2014 (effective from 1.1.2015), notified by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission on 5.11.2014, deals with one connection in one premises. The said provision is reproduced as under: -

"6.5 One Connection in One Premises 6.5.1 A consumer shall be treated as a distinct entity and deemed to be an independent establishment, if

a) it is a a separate unit in duly partitioned premises owned or taken on lease/rent;

b) it is registered as a separate entity/firm under the relevant law;

c) it holds a separate Sales Tax/VAT number and is independently assessed to Income Tax.

6.5.2 The applicant shall give an undertaking that no connection exists in the premises for which a connection is applied. However domestic supply consumer may get more than one domestic supply connection in the same premises where family members/occupants living in a house have separate cooking arrangements. In case a tenant requires a separate connection in the same premises, he shall furnish an undertaking from the landlord in the form of an affidavit duly attested by Notary Public that the landlord shall clear all the liabilities in case the tenant leaves the premises without paying the distribution licensee's dues.

6.5.3 If a portion of residential /industrial premises is regularly used for any commercial activity permitted under law , the consumer shall be required to obtain a separate connection under NRS category for the portion put to commercial use. In such an event, two connections, one under Schedule DS/Industrial and the other under Schedule NRS shall be permitted."

3. He has also prayed that in case the disputed electricity connection is not cancelled then direction may be issued for clubbing the same in terms of Clause 35 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual (updated till 30.6.2017) [for short 'the Supply Manual'] which says that "some consumers take more than one connection in the same premises to avoid conversion of supply to higher voltage and application of different Schedule of Tariff. Release of a new connection or more than one connection in the same premises shall be regulated as per Reg. 6.5 and for clubbing of industrial loads as per Reg. 8.12 of the Supply Code -2014.

4. The petitioner has pressed Clause 35.7 of the Supply Manual in support of his submission, which read as under: -

"35.7 Whenever an existing consumer on his own, applies for clubbing of two or more connections running at the same premises clubbing of all such connections may be allowed by the officers competent to sanction the total load after clubbing. The clubbing of such connections may be allowed at the cost of PSPCL only if on the clubbing of different connections, the voltage level for the total clubbed load remains the same. Where after clubbing of loads the consumer is required to get supply at the next higher voltage, he shall bear the expenditure required for laying higher voltage lines and setting up his own sub-station etc. These provisions shall be applicable for all categories of connections."

5. After notice, the respondents have filed their respective replies.

6. Respondent No.4 has averred in her reply that she is the aunt of the petitioner as petitioner is the son of