BRIJESH KEDIA @ BRIJESH KUMAR KEDIA vs JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD

The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 02.05.2017 passed in Appeal No.EOJ/03/2017.

The petitioner is the son of late Ashok Kumar Kedia who executed a rent agreement in favour of Mahendra Choudhary-respondent no.4 on

09.07.2014. The petitioner has pleaded that by virtue of sale deed dated 07.08.1992 a piece of land admeasuring about 0.04 acres, situated at Mauza-

Katras, Khata No.27, Plot No.347 was purchased. An adjoining piece of the land was also purchased on the same day by his father. Father of the

petitioner died on 15.06.2015. When electric connection was not granted to the respondent no.4, he approached Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran

Forum, Hazaribagh in Case No.22 of 2016 and by an interim order dated 11.01.2016, the respondent-JUVNL was directed to grant electric connection

in the premises occupied by respondent no.4, however, finally, by an order dated 27.02.2017 the Forum has dismissed Case No.22 of 2016. Against

this order, the respondent no.4 has preferred Case No.EOJ/03/2017 before the Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand. Operative portion of the order

passed by the Electricity Ombudsman reads as under:

 “23. It is important to mention at this juncture that electrical connection in shop in question has already been restored by Respondent No.1 & 2

vide order dated 07.04.2017, passed by this forum and Appellant is enjoying electricity connection till July 2017, as per his deed of agreement of

rent.Â

24. Needless to mention here that deed of agreement of rent is going to end in the month of July 2017. If his agreement of rent is further

extended then, it is duty of Appellant to inform the Respondent for its continuity. There will be, however, no order as to cost.â€​Â

Assailing the legality of order dated 02.05.2017 passed by Electricity Ombudsman, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order

passed in absence of the petitioner, which seriously affects his legal rights, warrants interference of this Court on the ground of violation of the

principles of natural justice. As against this, Mr. Saket Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4, supporting the impugned order dated

02.05.2017, submits that stand taken by the petitioner before the Forum has been duly noticed by the Electricity Ombudsman; it was produced in the

proceeding before the Electricity Ombudsman and the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 takes note of the same. It is further submitted that by

virtue of agreement dated 07.07.2017 executed by the wife of late Ashok Kumar Kedia, the Electricity Ombudsman has rightly restored electric

connection at the premises occupied by the respondent no.4.

Order dated 27.02.2017 passed in Case No.22 of 2016; the application was filed by the respondent no.4, would indicate that in the said proceeding

also the petitioner was not made a party by the respondent no.4 and when an objection on this ground was taken by OP-JBVNL before the Forum,

the petitioner was made opposite-party in the said proceeding. This order records that a notice has been served to the petitioner at E-5/50, 1st Floor,

Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi-89. In the appeal preferred by the respondent no.4, petitioner’s address at Katras has been disclosed and no notice was

sent to the petitioner at the above address at Delhi. Â

The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that it is not denied by the petitioner that the address disclosed in the proceeding before the

Electricity Ombudsman at Katras is not a correct address and even if no notice was sent at his Delhi address, on this ground order dated 02.05.2017

passed by the Electricity Ombudsman would not become unsustainable.Â

On the above contention, suffice would be to reproduce observation of the Supreme Court in “Canara Bank & Ors. Vs Debasis Das &

Ors.â€​ reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557; Â

 “15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body

embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well

settled. …………… Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him.Â

This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and

shades with timeâ€​Â

The Electricity Ombudsman, in its order dated 02.05.2017, has observed that only if the agreement of rent is further extended the electric supply

connection granted to respondent no.4 can be extended. On admitted facts, when the original lessor died on 15.06.2015; a rent agreement was

allegedly executed by his wife in favour of respondent no.4 on 07.07.2017, the respondent no.4 had become a trespasser on the said date or atleast on

expiry of the rent agreement executed on 09.07.2014. He was occupying the premises after 15.06.2015 or atleast after 08.07.2017, illegally. The rent

agreement allegedly executed by the wife of late Ashok Kumar Kedia on 07.07.2017 with whom the petitioner has dispute of title over the suit

premises in as much as he has instituted Title Suit No.139/2014, would not confer a right in the respondent no.4 to continue in the said premises and

seek electric connection on the basis of the rent agreement dated 07.07.2017.Â

Finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, it is set-aside. The writ petition is

allowed.Â

Original record of Appeal No.EOJ/03/2017 shall be returned.

                     Â