Ku. Adit Sharma vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Khestra Vidyut Vitran Company and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard.

This petition is directed against the order dated 06-02-2014 (Annexure P-1), whereby the respondents-Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd [in short "the Company"] informed the petitioner that her application for grant of new industrial electricity connection cannot be accepted because as per checking of her premises held on 07-08-2011, certain outstanding dues are payable to the Company. Till such time if such payment is made, no action can be taken.

Criticizing this order, Shri Shukla, submits that an action was taken by the Company against respondents No. 5 and 6. The proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 [in short "the Act"] is pending against respondents No. 5 & 6. Since the petitioner is not responsible for any such consumption of electricity/theft, rejection of the application by Annexure P-1 is impermissible. He relied on the order dated 13-04-2012 passed by this Court in the case of Suggamal Chaudhary vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. & Another.

Per contra, Shri Bhargava, submits that the petitioner has a remedy u/s 42(5) of the Act. On a specific question from the Bench under which provision of law the petitioner was denied electricity connection or was held to be ineligible, Shri Bhargava, learned counsel for the Company submits that it was under Clause 4.17 of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Supply Code [in short "Supply Code"]. However, he, during the course of argument, specifically stated that there was electricity theft from the premises of the Company but it was done by respondent No. 5 and 6.

Respondent No. 6 submits that he is disputing the tenancy between him and the petitioner. He submits that in the proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 of the Act, his name is falsely implicated. He further submits that the order passed by this Court in Suggamal Chaudhary (supra) has no application.

No other point is pressed by the parties. Clause 4.17 of Supply Code on which heavy reliance is placed, reads as under:-

4.17 if the consumer, in respect of an earlier agreement executed in this name or in the name of a firm or company with which he was associated either as a partner, director or managing director has any arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the premises where the new connection is applied for and such dues are payable to the licensee, the requisition for supply may not be entertained by the licensee until the dues are paid in full. In case of a person occupying a new property, it will be the obligation of that person to check the bills for the previous months or, in case of disconnected supply, the amount due as per the licensee''s records immediately before his occupation and ensure that all outstanding electricity dues as specified in the bills are duly paid up and discharged. The licensee shall be obliged to issue a certificate of the amount outstanding from the connection that was installed or is installed in such premises on request made by such person. The licensee may refuse to supply electricity to the premises through the already existing connection or refuse to give a new connection to the premises till such outstanding dues to the licensee are cleared.

As per stand of Shri Bhargava, electricity connection was not in the name of the petitioner nor alleged electricity theft has been done by the petitioner. Thus, in the peculiar facts of the case, I am unable to hold that Clause 4.17 of Supply Code can deprive the petitioner from electricity connection. No other provision is brought to the notice of this Court, which may deprive the petitioner from new electricity connection.

So far as question of alternative remedy is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, it is a matter of discretion and not of compulsion. Thus, the petition is entertained.

So far as objection of respondent No. 6 is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, his alleged relation with the petitioner is not a subject matter of dispute in the present case. Whether or not he has committed theft of electricity, is also not a subject matter of this petition. In the petition filed by petitioner Ku. Aditi Sharma, the validity of the proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 of the Act against respondent No. 6, cannot be examined.

On the basis of above aforesaid, the impugned order does not have any statutory or legal backing. The said order dated 06-02-2014 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. The respondents-Company are directed to examine the application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law and decide the same within three weeks. Outcome shall be communicated to the petitioner.

The petition is allowed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.