AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
APPLICANT/ complainant has filed a complaint under Sections 10(a)(i)/(iv) and 36-B(a)/(d) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive and unfair trade practices. It has been stated by the applicant/complainant that it bought in auction, a plot of land measuring 28,328.15 sq. mtrs. in Ratan Lal Nagar, Kanpur for developing a Commercial Centre and applied for a temporary electricity connection and paid a sum of Rs. 5,800/- as security deposit on 27.3.1996 and a temporary connection was given by the respondent. It has been further mentioned that the bills of electricity consumption were regularly paid except the bill for the period 13.12.1996 to 30.7.1997 which remained unpaid due to the sad demise of the Chairman of the applicant/ complainant-Company. However, when a cheque of the amount of Rs. 28,994/- was sent to the respondent with a letter dated 20.8.1997, the electricity connection was restored on 19.11.1997, but it was again disconnected on 20.1.1998. It has been further submitted by the applicant/ complainant that it filed a complaint which was registered as RTPE 73/98 in the Commission and also an application under Section 12-A of the Act for interim injunction and the Commission ordered restoration of the electricity connection which was restored on 25.3.1998.
IT has been further stated that the respondent issued another bill for the period of 30.7.1997 to 28.3.1998 amounting to Rs. 17,996.60 on 2.4.1998. The grievance of the applicant/ complainant is that as per its calculation on the basis of the per unit rate of Rs. 4.44 per unit, the total amount of bill for consumption of 691 units worked out to Rs. 3,068/- and not Rs. 17,996.60 and that during 43 days from 1.8.1997 to 4.8.1997, 19.11.1997 to 21.1.1998 and 25.3.1998 to 28.3.1998, the bill on the basis of consumption could not have been more than what was calculated by it. The applicant/complainant also filed an application under Section 12-A of the Act for interim injunction and it came up for hearing before the Commission on 22.4.1998. A notice in respect of both the complaint as well as the interim relief application was ordered to be issued and the respondent was directed to appear on 28.4.1998 to show cause why the interim injunction, prayed for, should not be granted. While pressing for interim relief it was also mentioned by the learned Advocate for the applicant/complainant that according to calculations, the applicant/complainant would have to pay an amount of Rs. 3,100/- towards the electricity consumption recorded in the bill and on the basis of his above statement it was recorded in the Commission''s order passed on 22.4.1998 that the applicant/complainant may deposit that amount without prejudice to its contentions in these proceedings.
On 28.4.1998, the respondent did not appear before the Commission despite service of the notice and it was stated by the learned Advocate for the applicant/complainant that although the amount of Rs. 3,100/- was attempted to be paid by the applicant/complainant, the payment was not accepted by the respondent. As a prima facie case appeared to have been made out by the applicant/complainant and as the balance of convenience was more in favour of the applicant/complainant, the respondent was directed not to disconnect the supply of electricity and case was adjourned to 17th July, 1998.
ON 17.7.1998, the Advocate for the respondent appeared and requested for time to file the reply which was filed on 7.8.1998. At the request of the Advocate for the applicant/ complainant, the case was adjourned to 7.9.1998 with the direction to the applicant /complainant to file a rejoinder to the respondent''s reply to the interim relief application. On 7.9.1998, although a rejoinder on behalf of the applicant/complainant had not been filed, after considering the respondent''s reply to the interim relief application, the applicant/complainant was directed to deposit the full amount of the bill and in the event the full amount had been deposited, the respondent may restore the electricity supply according to law after completion of all necessary formalities.
THEREAFTER, the applicant /complainant has filed an application under Sections 13B/ 12A(2) of the Act stating the payment of Rs. 17,996.60 in two instalments had been made and even though the Commission had ordered on 7.9.1998 reconnection of the electricity supply, it had not been restored by the respondent. The application under Section 13B of the Act for action in contempt against the respondent was ordered to be placed before the appropriate Bench and it was observed by that Bench that the contempt proceeding should not come in the way of the applicant/complainant to have a decision on the application for restoration of electricity supply and the application may be heard and disposed of on its own merits, according to law. Arguments on the application under Section 12A(2) of the Act have been heard and written synopsis submitted by the learned Advocates for the applicant / complainant as well as the respondent have been perused. The case of the respondent is that the temporary connection given to the applicant/complainant was disconnected on 3.2.1998 and the applicant/ complainant was asked to apply for permanent connection keeping in view its requirement of load and also complete the necessary formalities but no such application was made by the applicant/complainant. It was further stated in the reply that the connection was not restored by the respondent on 25.3.1998 or at any date thereafter and the electricity supply remained disconnected w.e.f. 3.2.1998. It was further submitted that the respondent received a cheque of Rs. 14,896.60 as against the bill of Rs. 17,996.60 which amount was to be paid by the applicant/ complainant in terms of the Commission''s order dated 7.9.1998. In other words, the submission of the respondent was that applicant/complainant had not deposited the entire amount nor completed the necessary formalities and moreover, the cheque of the applicant/ complainant was issued in favour of UPSEB and not the respondent-Kanpur Electricity Authority and, therefore, the supply of electricity was not restored and the cheque was returned to the applicant/ complainant with the direction that it should apply for a permanent connection as per the rules of the respondent and complete the necessary formalities. From the facts brought on record, it appears that the applicant / complainant had been given only a temporary connection and that the applicant/complainant defaulted in making payment of the electricity bill and as a consequence of that, the temporary connection was cut off. Subsequently, when the order dated 7.9.1998 was passed by the Commission for restoring the connection on payment of the full amount of the bill, the applicant/complainant did not make the payment of the entire amount in lumpsum and negligently issued a cheque in favour of UPSEB and not Kanpur Electricity Authority. The order passed on 7.9.1998 is quite clear insofar as restoration of electricity was contingent upon payment of the entire amount of the bill. The respondent, as it transpires from its reply, has no objection to restoration of the electricity supply. In fact, the case of the respondent is that the applicant/complainant should apply for a permanent connection, keeping in view of the requirements of load after completion of necessary formalities and the electricity connection would be given. It thus appears that the ball is now in the Court of the applicant/complainant and it is for the applicant/ complainant to complete the necessary formalities and apply for a permanent connection. It is also in the applicant/complainant''s interest to have a permanent connection. The applicant/ complainant will have a cause of action only if the necessary connection is refused even after payment of the dues and completion of necessary formalities. In view of the above discussion, the order passed on 7.9.1998 does not call for any interference. In the result, the application under Section 12A(2) of the Act deserves to be and is hereby rejected with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Application dismissed.