Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3148
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla, JJ.
Anubhav Jaiswal - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. - 44867 of 2014
Decided On : 27-08-2014
For the Petitioner:- Ashok Pandey
For the Respondent:- Mahboob Ahmad
The main legal point established is that outstanding electricity dues are the first charge on the premises, and in the event of property subdivision, the outstanding dues should be divided on a pro-rata basis.
Headnote:
electricity dues - liability and apportionment - Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Clause 4.3
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the liability and apportionment of electricity dues for a premise that was succeeded by several owners. The petitioner sought to absolve himself of any liability of electricity dues and obtain a new connection for the portion he purchased.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Executive Engineer to take stock of the situation, make inquiries, and consider all objections and documents before passing appropriate orders. The petitioner was required to deposit the amount due in his share upon determination.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of electricity dues for the premise and the petitioner's entitlement to a new electricity connection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Clause 4.3 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, which stipulates that outstanding dues are the first charge on the premises and, in the event of property subdivision, the outstanding dues should be divided on a pro-rata basis.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Executive Engineer to make a fresh determination after putting the original owner to notice, and to pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The Contempt Application was treated as infructuous and consigned to records.
This case has certain peculiar facts with regard to the liability and apportionment of electricity dues in respect of a premise that came to be succeeded by several owners.
2. The original owner of the premise Shri Islam Beg sold part of the premises in favour of one Jitendra Kumar Srivastava in the year 2008. Shri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava in turn sold it to one Smt. Swati Chaurasiya in the year 2009, who in turn sold it to one Shri R.K. Malviya in the year 2011. The petitioner is the fourth purchaser of part of the said premises under a sale deed dated 12/4/2012. The petitioner wanted to absolve himself of any liability of electricity dues and obtain a new connection for the portion which he has purchased.
3. An inspection was carried out and a theft proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have filed Writ Petition No.30684/2013 which was disposed of on 10/12/2013 by the following judgment:
"The grievance of the petitioner in the matter of new connection being provided in his name at the residential house No.64/1 Keedganj, Allahabad needs to be examined by the respondent no.2 at the first instance.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent no.2 along with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today and the respondent no.2 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a period of two weeks thereafter.
We make it clear that if there are any arrears of the previous connection it shall be necessary that these dues are cleared before new connection is provided."
4. Since the same was not being redressed, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No.2225/2014. On the issuance of the notice, the Chief Engineer has now disposed of the representation of the petitioner by the impugned communication dated 21/4/2014 which has been assailed in the present writ petition.
5. The contention of Shri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability of the entire premises and the dues against Shri Islam Beg have to be realised from him. He contends that Shri Islam Beg continues to enjoy the electricity connection without any proceeding for disconnection inspite of dues on him, and on the other hand the petitioner is being denied the new electricity connection. He further submits that the petitioner has made certain deposits yet the respondents have refused a new connection to the petitioner subject to deposit of the entire dues on the entire premises and payment of the other dues referred to in the order dated 21/4/2014.
6. Shri Mehboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the payments are concerned, unless it is cleared in terms of Clause 4.3 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, (hereinafter called the "Code, 2005") it will not be possible for the Electricity Department to grant a new connection to the petitioner as desired by him. He further submits that if such dues are cleared of then a decision can be taken by the licensor or its competent authority in the matter as per the aforesaid provisions. He further contends that processing can be done including fixing of any proportionate liability in the event of sale and purchase of a divided share of the property. The petitioner having not approached under the aforesaid provision, and there being no application to that effect nor any evidence to support the same, the representation of the petitioner had to be rejected. He submits that now the entire facts have been stated in the present writ petition and in the aforesaid background the claim of the petitioner can be decided keeping in view the aforesaid provision.
7. Having considered the submissions raised, Clause 4.3 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 is extracted herein:
"4.3. New Connections-General.-(a)The system of supply and voltage shall depend on the category of the consumer and the lo
