AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as follows:-
(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to issue/grant new electricity connection to the petitioner pursuant to the existing electricity connection in its unit at village Bheempuri Tehsil Kaladhungi, Nainital
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 not to create any hindrance and not to disconnect the electricity connection installed at the unit of the petitioner at Village Bheempuri, Tehsil Kaladhungi, Nainital on the direction of the respondent no. 2 (as per Annexure n. 5) to the writ petition.
The facts of the case are, at present as follows:-
On 30.10.2021, a written contract was executed duly registered between the petitioner and respondent no. 3. As per the contract, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as rent and it is specifically stated in the contract that the term of the contract is till 29.10.2041, i.e., for 20 years. On 25.04.2022, another agreement was executed between the parties whereby the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 1,05,000/- per month as production fee, and as such petitioner has been paying Rs. 1,25,000/- per month to respondent no. 3. Apart from the monthly payment, an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was also paid by the petitioner as security. On 25.09.2022, the partners of respondent no. 3, namely, Sonu Bagadwal and Kavita Bagadwal started harassing the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that in collusion with the official of the Power Corporation, respondent no. 3 has managed to disconnect the electricity of the unit of the petitioner.
Admittedly, petitioner is running an industrial activity of water bottling on the site. The petitioner on 28.09.2022, moved a complaint before respondent no. 2, i.e., Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Haldwani (hereinafter referred to as the Redressal Forum for brevity). However, on 11.10.2022, the respondent no. 2 refused to entertain the complaint of the petitioner on the ground of jurisdiction, holding that under purview of the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner is not a consumer of the power corporation, therefore respondent no. 2 cannot entertain the complaint.
The respondent no. 2 was correct in holding that petitioner cannot maintain application before it on the ground that he is not the consumer, but at the same time, if consumer files an application before the Redressal Forum and the Redressal Forum proposes to pass an order which shall adversely affect the economic and industrial activity of the petitioner, who is a lesser under the consumer, then the Redressal Forum should not pass any such order without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the said person, who is holding the property.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no. 2, i.e., Redressal Forum to allow the petitioner to file his objection to the petition filed by the consumer and decide the issue. It shall also be taken into consideration by the Redressal Forum that it is the present petitioner who is paying the current dues of the licensee for supply of the electricity and it is not the consumer on whose name property is standing is paying the electricity dues. Only after considering this aspect of the case and deciding rights of the present petitioner, appropriate order shall be passed by the Redressal Forum.
Grant certified copies of the order during course of the day.