Jamila vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.2.2022 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.42/2021, upholding the order passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-1 to the Court of 5th Additional Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.285-A/2021, whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC was dismissed.

Facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction for establishing the electricity connection in the house situated besides Moosa Hotal, Mominpara, Raipur, being an occupant. In the said civil suit, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC to provide electricity connection, which has been dismissed by the impugned orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the orders passed by the Court below are bad in law. Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides that the licensee shall on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. The concerned authority is under an obligation to provide electricity connection to the petitioner and it cannot refrain by making excuses that the document regarding ownership has not been produced before it. So, learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned orders and to direct the respondent authorities to provide electricity connection to the petitioner. Reliance is placed in the matters of Yogesh Lakhmanbhai Chovatiya Vs. PGVCL through the Deputy Engineer {R/Special Civil Application No.6281/2021, decided on 2.8.2022 by the Gujarat High Court}, Dilip (Dead) Through LRs. Vs. Satish & Others {2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570} and N.R. Sharma Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & other connected matters {WPC No.3341/2017, decided on 2.1.2018 by this Court}.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned State Counsel would support the impugned order on submission that the petitioner/plaintiff has miserably failed to demonstrate any title or consent from the owner of the premises to continue in possession. So, the application, after considering the provisions of Section 4.1 & 4.15 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2011, has rightly been dismissed. Learned counsel submits that as the earlier connection was disconnected, there is no occasion to provide a new connection on the same building.

Having considered the submission of the parties and the fact that both the Courts below have examined the parameters for grant of temporary injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, as the petitioner/plaintiff has not filed any of the acceptable documents to demonstrate a valid occupancy of the said premises, even the property documents of the premises have not been annexed nor filed in this petition, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have properly exercised their discretionary powers and rightly dismissed the application, and the case laws relied on by counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts.

Resultantly, the present Petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.