PASHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED vs GHANSHYAMSINH AMARSINH GOHIL - 2024-01-09

O R D E R

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties.

Leave granted.

There are two issues involved in this Appeal. The first issue is of the applicability of Regulation 4.30 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2015 (for short, “the Supply Code”). The Supply Code has been enacted by exercising powers under Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “the 2003 Act”) read with Section 181(2)(x) thereof. This issue is in the context of an application for the electricity supply made by the respondent. The Regulation 4.30 of the Supply Code reads thus:

“4.30 An application for new connection, reconnection, addition or reduction of load, change of name or shifting of service line for any premises need not be entertained unless any dues relating to that premises or any dues of the applicant to the Distribution Licensee in respect of any other service connection held in his name anywhere in the jurisdiction of the Distribution Licensee have been cleared.

Provided that in case the connection is released after recovery of earlier dues from the new applicant and in case the licensee, after availing appropriate legal remedies, get the full or part of the dues from the previous consumer/owner or occupier of that premise, the amount shall be refunded to the new consumer/owner or occupier from whom the dues have been recovered after adjusting the expenses to recover such dues.”

(Underline supplied)

The second issue is of the identity of the property concerning which the respondent sought the new electricity connection. The learned Single Judge held that in respect of the property described in the application for the grant of a new electricity connection, there were no electricity dues. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent. The factual finding recorded by the learned Single Judge was that to the property in respect of which a new electricity connection was sought, no liability to pay the past electricity dues was attached. Therefore, a direction was issued to grant a fresh electricity connection to the respondent as expeditiously as possible.

In a Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant, the issue regarding the identity of the property has not been dealt with by the Division Bench. The Division Bench proceeded on the footing that even if the contention of the appellant regarding the identity of the property is correct, in view of a clause in the sale deed which makes the vendor liable for all the past dues, the appellant cannot insist on the respondent paying the dues.

As far as the first issue regarding the right of the appellant to insist on the payment of past dues of electricity in respect of the property is concerned, the law has been laid down by this Court in the case of K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors.1. This Court held that the scope of regulatory powers of the 1 2023 INSC 560 State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is broad enough to stipulate the condition of recovery of electricity charges payable by the previous owner from the new or subsequent owner. The Supply Code, which contains Regulation 4.30, has been enacted in the exercise of powers under Section 50 of the 2003 Act. There is no challenge to the validity of the Supply Code. Regulation 4.30 of the Supply Code is applicable even in the case of a new connection. The respondent sought a new connection. Therefore, on this issue, the appellant is right, and the respondent's liability will arise under Regulation 4.30 of the Supply Code to pay the past dues in view of the abovementioned decision. After paying the dues to the appellant, the respondent can always file an appropriate proceedings for recovery against his vendor on the basis of relevant clause in the sale deed.

However, there is no finding recorded by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal on the issue of the identity of the property, which the learned Single Judge decided in paragraph 9 of his judgment.

Therefore, only for that limited purpose, by setting aside the impugned order to the extent of the identity of the property, we remit the Letters Patent Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court for consideration of only one issue of the identity of the property, which is the subject matter of the application made by the respondent. We make it clear that the issue of liability of the respondent under Regulation 4.30 of the Supply Code stands decided in favour of the appellant.

We direct the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad to list the restored Letters Patent Appeal before the Roster Bench on 5th February, 2024 (Monday). The Division Bench will fix a date for the final hearing on that day and proceed to decide the limited issue as indicated above as expeditiously as possible.

In view of the order of remand, the contempt proceedings will not survive.

It is not in dispute that the appellant has filed a suit for recovery of due amounts towards electricity arrears against the predecessor-in-title of the respondent. It is obvious that if, in the said suit, any amount is recovered by the appellant from the predecessor-in-title of the respondent, the same shall be governed by the proviso to Regulation 4.30 of the Supply Code.

The Appeal is allowed on the above terms.

..........................J.

(ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J.

(UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 09, 2024.

ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.7 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21062/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-06-2021 in LPA No. 345/2020 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad)

PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED Petitioner(s)

VERSUS GHANSHYAMSINH AMARSINH GOHIL Respondent(s)

(IA No. 112265/2022 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 204608/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 168342/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 112267/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 168343/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 204609/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND IA No. 65476/2023 - STAY APPLICATION)

Date : 09-01-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.G. Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Shrishti Kindharia, Adv.

Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.

Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv.

Mr. D K Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Kartikey, Adv.

Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Neelu Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Pushkal Khanna, Adv.

Ms. Ramya Khanna, Adv. Ms. Poorvi Goyal, Adv. Mr. Kartik Hooda, Adv.

Mr. Sumit Saddi, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

(ASHISH KONDLE) (AVGV RAMU)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

[THE SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]