HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs DEV RAJ VINAYAK

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of 6th December, 1993 passed by the State Commission, Haryana in Appeal No. 441 of 1993.

THE State Commission had set aside the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint as having no merit and came to the finding that the Respondent appellant''s electric connection was disconnected unauthorisedly therefore, granted relief to him. The facts briefly are that the Respondent complainant is the owner of a brick kiln. He had applied for sanction of an electric connection for running the brick kiln. Two other persons viz., Narain Parshad and Bikhi Chand had also been granted separate and distinct electric connections with meters Nos. 857 and 858 on the same premises. The latter two consumers fell into arrears in the payment of electricity bills which amounted to Rs. 24,868/- However, the State Electricity Board disconnected the electricity supply of the Respondent complainant ''''even if he had made no default whatsoever, in the payment of electricity charges" so far as his electric connection was concerned. In this Revision Petition the Revision Petitioner. The Haryana State Electricity Board, has pointed out that the respondent complainant had obtained three electric connections on the same day for the brick kiln, one in his own name and two other electric connections in the name of his employees.

HE had obtained three connections so as to obviate the payment of line rent. As per the tariff, rent charges have to be paid for one single connection of higher capacity, whereas by splitting up the connection into three connections, each falling below the limit for rent for the line, he was exempt from line rent.

THE respondent-complainant had purchased all the three meters on the same day viz. 7.2.1991 and they bear consecutive meter numbers. All the three meters were installed in the same brick kiln. For these two electric connections, their rent charges were in arrears because of non-clearance of the dues. Subsequently, the connection of the Respondent was also disconnected as it was in the same premises. It is found from the facts stated by the Revision Petitioner, which have remained unrebutted, that the two connections in the name of two other persons, were benami connections, whose real beneficiary was the respondent-complainant, and that this was done to escape the liability for the line rent.

WE are of the view that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the Revision Petitioner- Electricity Board"and that we cannot assail the act of disconnection in this case. If the Respondent feels that the Revision Petitioner Electricity Board"has unfairly and arbitrarily disconnected his electric connection, he is free to seek redress in a Civil Court and this order will not prejudice him in any manner. The Revision Petition is allowed. The decision of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. There is no order as to costs.