Back
2009 Supreme(MP) 568
R.S. Garg and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. v. Electricity
Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and another
Writ Appeal No.45 of 2009 : against the order of Single Judge,
passed in Writ Petition No. 147 of 2009,
published in 2009(2) JLJ 210; Decided on 11.5.2009.
Manoj Munshi for appellant;
Vivek Dalal for respondent No.2.
Headnote:Electricity Supply Code, 2004 (M.P.) -- Clause 4.17 -- recovery of dues of electricity charges of erstwhile consumer -- new consumer purchased same property in Court sale/auction, free from all encumbrances -- not connected with erstwhile consumer/defaulter -- recovery cannot be made from him.
Held : If the present consumer, in relation to the earlier agreement, was associated with the firm or company either as a Partner, Director or Managing Director or as occupier and/or owner of the premises then he would not be entitled to a new connection unless the earlier liability is discharged. The words "with which he was associated" are not ornamental words. The said words qualify a Partner, Director or Managing Director or an occupier or owner of the premises of the firm or company which earlier had the agreement in its name.
Undisputedly, the property has been auctioned and sold by the High Court under its powers, as conferred upon every Company Court. When the Court transfers the property free from all encumbrances then in respect of any clause contained in Clause 4.17 of the Supply Code, the property would stand transferred free from all encumbrances.
In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was not unjustified in providing a protection to the purchaser who had purchased the property in the Court sale/Court auction and had shown that he was never associated with the earlier consumer and in holding that the Electricity Company would not be entitled to recover the dues which were recoverable from the erstwhile owner/the company which is now under liquidation. (2009) 1 SCC 210, (2004)3 SCC 587 and (1995)2 SCC 648 followed. 2009(2) JLJ 210 affirmed. [Paras 12, 13 & 19
fo|qr iznk; lafgrk] 2004 ¼e-Á-½ && [kaM 4-17 && iwoZ ds miHkksDrk ds fo|qr izHkkjksa ds ‘kks/;ksa dh olwyh && miHkksDrk us ogh laifRr U;k;ky; fodz;A uhykeh esa lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr dz; dh && iwoZ ds miHkksDrkA O;frdzeh ls lacaf/kr ugha && mlls olwyh ugha dh tk ldrhA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;fn iwoZrj djkj ds laca/k esa] orZeku miHkksDrk QeZ ;k daiuh esa Hkkxhnkj] funsZ‘kd ;k izca/k funsZ‘k ;k vf/kHkksxh rFkk@;k ifjlj ds Lokeh ds :i esa lac) gksrk rc og rc rd u, la;kstu dk gdnkj ugha gksrk tc rd fd iwoZrj nkf;Ro dk mUekspu ugha gks tk,A ‘‘kCn ^^ftlds lkFk og lac) Fkk** vyadkfjd ‘‘kCn ugha gSA mDr ‘‘kCn ml QeZ ;k daiuh ds ftlds uke ls iwoZ esa djkj Fkk] Hkkxhnkj] funsZ‘kd ;k izca/k funsZ‘kd ;k ifjlj ds vf/kHkksxh ;k Lokeh dks fo"ksfkr djrs gSaA
fufoZokn :i ls laifRr dh uhykeh rFkk fodz; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk viuh mu ‘kfDr;ksa ds v/khu fd;k x;k tks izR;sd daiuh U;k;ky; dks iznRr gSaA tc U;k;ky; lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr laifRr dk varj.k djrk gS rc iznk; lafgrk ds [kaM 4-17 esa varfoZ"V fdlh Hkh [kaM ds laca/k esa] laifRr lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr varfjr gksxhA
gekjh jk; esa] fo}ku ,d U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk ml dzsrk dks laj{k.k fn;k tkuk ftlus U;k;ky; fodz;@U;k;ky; uhykeh esa laifRr dz; dh Fkh rFkk nf‘kZr fd;k Fkk fd og iwoZ ds miHkksDrk ls dHkh&Hkh lacaf/kr ugha Fkk rFkk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ugha Fkk fd fo|qr daiuh mu ‘kks/;ksa dh olwyh djus dh gdnkj ugha gksxh tks igys ds Lokeh@daiuh ls] tks vc lekiu ds v/khu gS] olwyh ;ksX; FksA ¼2009½1 ,l lh lh 210] ¼2004½3 ,l lh lh 587 rFkk ¼1995½ ,l lh lh 648 vuqlfjrA 2009¼2½ ts ,y ts 210 vfHkiq"VA ¼iSjk 12] 13 ,oa 19
Garg, J. -- 1. The appellant-Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd., being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.2.2009, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 147/2009 {Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. v. Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and another [2009(2) JLJ 210=2009(2) MPHT 324]}, whereunder the petition filed by the present appellant challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 20.12.2008, passed by Electricity Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum in Complaint Case No.W0045608 (Order No.507/ECGRF/Indore/ 08), has been rejected, has filed this appeal under section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the petitioner-appellant is a successor-in-interest of M.P. Electricity Board. From the records it appears that on 6th February, 1991, erstwhile Electricity Board entered into a High Tension Agreement, for supply of electrical energy, with one M/s. Quality Steel and Forgings Ltd., yet another agreement was entered into between the parties on 29th March, 1991 entitling the Company to draw power to the extent of 5000 KVA. It appears that the monthly bills issued to M/s. Quality Steel and Forgings Ltd., remained unpaid for almost about a period of seven years and, therefore, in view of the said default the supply of the power to the Company was temporarily disconnected on June 26,1998. It also appears that the matter travelled before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of Sick Industrial Company (Special Provision) Act, 1984. On 24th April, 2000, the BIFR opined that it would be just and equitable to initiate winding up proceedings against M/s. Quality Steel and Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, winding up proceedings were initiated against the said Company before the Calcutta High Court. The petition was entertained, admitted and Official Liquidator was appointed in the matter by the said Court. During pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner-appellant lodged claim of Rs.6.43 crores before the Calcutta High Court against the said Company, though the claim was made before the Official Liquidator, but, in fact, it was before the High Court.
3. It appears that on 12th January, 2007, the Company Judge of Calcutta High Court ordered sale of lease-hold rights, Plant and Machinery of M/s. Quality Steel and Forgings Ltd., M/s. Choudhary and Sons Forgings Pvt. Ltd., came up as successful bidders and on 12th January, 2007 the auction knocked in the favour of M/s. Choudhary and Sons Forgings Pvt. Ltd., was confirmed by the High Court in a sum of Rs.1.00 crore. After purchase of the property, M/s. Choudhary and Sons Forgings Pvt. Ltd., transferred all the assets which were purchased by them in the auction to M/s. RK. Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., and on 9.4.2008 M/s. RK. Ferro Alloys approached the present appellant for grant of new electricity connection. It is not in dispute before us that the property which was purchased by M/s. Choudhary and Sons for sum of Rs.l.00 crore was sold by said M/s. Choudhary and Sons to M/s. Ferro Alloys in sum of Rs.1.25crores.A no objection certificate was granted by M/s. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited on July 2, 2008 in favour of M/s. R.K. Ferro Alloys for grant of new connection. The appellant before us refused sanction of H.T. Load Connection to M/s. RK. Ferro Alloys for the reason that outstanding dues recoverable from M/s. Quality Steel and Forgings Ltd., were not cleared and, therefore, in accordance with Clause 4.17 of the M.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2004 ("Supply Code"), for short), the application of the applicant-Company could not be entertained.
4. In view of the aforesaid refusal M/s. RK. Ferro Alloys approached to this Court in Writ Petition No.4414/2008, a show cause notice was issued to the present appellant, the
