Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 163
2012 (1) UAD 738
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma
Writ Petition No. 1625 (M/S) of 2011
SMT. SASHI ARYA – Petitioner
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION
DEHRADUN & TWO ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 07.05.2012
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.D. Bhatt, Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, Counsel
Headnote:Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Release of New LT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2007, Reg. No. 3(2) — Getting new electricity connection — When the purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor seeking a fresh electricity connection to its premises for supply of electricity — The distributor can stipulate the terms subject to which it would supply electricity — It can stipulate as one of the conditions for supply, that the arrears due in regard to the supply of electricity made to the premises when it was in the occupation of the previous owner/occupant, should be cleared before the electricity supply is restored to the premises or a fresh connection is provided to the premises — If any statutory rules govern the conditions relating to sanction of a connection or supply of electricity — The distributor can insist upon fulfillment of the requirements of such rules and regulations — Since now the Uttarakhand Power Corporation had framed Regulations, 2007 and the petitioner had not complied with the directions contained in part (2) of Reg. 3 of Regulations 2007 — Therefore, fulfillment of the requirement of the said Regulations insisted. (Paras 10, 14)
mÙkjk[kaM fo|qr fu;ked vk;ksx ¼ubZ ,yVh dusD'ku] lao/kZu vkSj Hkkj esa deh dh foKfIr tkjh½ fofu;e] 2007] fofu;e uañ 3¼2½ & u;k fctyh dusD'ku & tc ,d ifjlj ds [kjhnkj fctyh dh vkiwfrZ ds fy, forjd ls u, fctyh dusD'ku dh ekax j[krk gS & rc forjd bl lanHkZ esa tks ogk¡ fctyh dh vkiwfrZ gksxh dh vuqi.khZ dj ldrs gSa & tSls fd vkiwfrZ ds fy, 'krks± esa ls ,d 'krZ fctyh dh vkiwfrZ ds lEcU/k esa fd og cdk;k ns[k dj tc ifjlj fiNys ekfyd@fuoklh ds dCts esa Fkk ifjlj esa fctyh dh vkiwfrZ cgky djus ls igys ;k ifjlj ds fy, ,d rktk dusD'ku iznku djus ls iwoZ] ;fn dksbZ Hkh oS/kkfud fu;e dusD'ku ;k fctyh dh vkiwfrZ dh eatwjh ls lacaf/kr fLFkfr;ksa dks fu;af=r djrk gS & forjd bl rjg ds fu;eksa vkSj fofu;eksa dh vko';drkvksa dh iwfrZ ij tksj dj ldrs gSa pw¡fd vc mÙkjk[kaM ikoj dkjiksjs'ku us 2007 fofu;ek ykxw fd, gSa vkSj ;kfpdkdrkZ us Reg. 3, Regs. 2003 esa fufgr funsZ'kksa ds lkFk vuqikyu ugha fd;k Fkk & blfy, 2007 fofu;e dh vko';drk dh iwfrZ ij tksj fn;k x;kA ¼izLrj 10] 14½
(Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.)
Heard Sri D.D. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, Counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought the following relief: -
I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/letter dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition), issued by respondent No.3.
II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith install a new/fresh electricity connection in the property of petitioner in pursuance of application made by the petitioner after fulfilling the required formalities.
III. To issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IV. Award cost of the petition.
3. Briefly stated he facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner had purchased a land situated at Khasra Nos. 85 and 87, situated in Mauza Shyampur, Pargana Parwadoon, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun from M/s Bhardwaj Heavy Bridge Ltd. vide registered sale-deed dated 15.7.2004.
4. After purchasing the land in question the petitioner applied for a new electricity connection of two K.V. before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 vide impugned order/letter dated 30.5.2011, has rejected the said application of the petitioner on the ground that the premises for which the petitioner has applied for new connection, an electricity connection No. RK-6-2205/022662 was already installed in the name of Sri K.K. Bhardwaj and a sum of Rs. 76,220/- is outstanding towards the said connection therefore the petitioner must clear the said outstanding dues before installation of new electricity connection.
5. The petitioner’s case is that the relationship between the Electricity Department and the Consumer is purely contractual and admittedly the petitioner had not consumed the electricity for which there is alleged outstanding dues hence the same cannot be realized from the petitioner. Further Sri K.K. Bhardwaj has not sold the property to the petitioner and there is no outstanding dues against M/s Bhardwaj Heavy Bridge Ltd., who had sold the property to the petitioner.
6. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner and the facts pleaded in the writ petition have been reiterated therein. In para-4 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated that the electricity connection was installed in the name of Sri K.K. Bhardwaj and the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay the dues and he is entitled for a new electricity connection.
7. The respondents resisted the writ petition by filing counter affidavit and in para-5 of he counter affidavit it is stated that the premises which was purchased by the petitioner from M/s Bhardwaj Heavy Bridge Ltd through its Managing Director Sri V.K. Bhardwaj in the year 2004, there was a commercial electricity connection No. RK-6 2205/022662 of 7.5 K.W. on the name of Sri K.K. Bhardwaj S/o Sri V.D. Bhardwaj. The said consumer did not pay the electricity charges as such the electricity connection was disconnected. In para-6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission has framed the regulations namely, Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Release of New LT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2007 and according to Regulations 3 and 4 a new connection cannot be granted to the petitioner without clearing the dues on the old connection installed in the same premises.
8. The respondents also filed supplementary counter affidavit and reiterated the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that the outstanding dues was relating to electricity connection of Sri K.K. Bhardwaj and the petitioner has not consumed the electricity of outstanding dues, therefore, in view of the ju
