Smt. Rita Saini vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking the following prayers:

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.8.2016 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 4 to 6 to forthwith restore the electricity connection no. 9769999368964 of petitioner at her property 99/2 Kehri Gaon (Arcadia Grant) Prem Nagar Dehradun."

Briefly put, the facts are as follows:

Appellant purchased a piece of property and applied for a temporary connection from the respondent Power Corporation. The temporary connection was granted. The period of temporary connection ran out. Thereupon, an application for extension was given. It is while so that the order, which is impugned in the writ petition, came to be passed. It appears that, in the meantime, proceedings were taken before the Assistant Collector under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Assistant Collector, vide his order dated 04.08.2016, proceeded to take the view that the property was sold by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant to her, though, under the law, the seller could not have sold the property being a member of the Scheduled Tribe Community and, therefore, the property had vested. In fact, appellant had carried the matter in revision before the Commissioner, who proceeded to grant a stay initially; but, subsequently, the said revision also was dismissed on 16.09.2016. Appellant has carried the matter to this Court by filing a writ petition and the same is pending. There is an order of status quo in the same, it is brought to our notice.

Passing on to the relevant facts, the impugned order came to be passed taking note of the order passed by the Assistant Collector and disconnection was done on the basis that the property stood vested in the State. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by taking note of the interim order granted by the Additional Commissioner, which we have already noted, which is dated 23.08.2016. The learned Single Judge observed that the Power Corporation may not be aware of the said fact and, in case it is so, appellant shall make a fresh representation to the authority concerned bringing all these facts to the notice of the Power Corporation, which shall be decided promptly in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

We have heard Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the Power Corporation.

Learned counsel for the appellant would point out Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He would submit that, under the Act, the authority is bound to give connection within a particular period. The exceptional cases do not exist in this particular case. Section 56, according to him, provides for the grounds on which disconnection can be effected. The grounds as mentioned in Section 56 do not exist and, therefore, the disconnection ordered is bad in law.

Learned counsel for the respondent Power Corporation is also not able to point out whether the ground taken for disconnection is recognised in law. No doubt, he points out that what the appellant was given was

only a temporary connection and the period of the temporary connection had run out. He also points out that a person with temporary connection, under the Regulations made by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation under Section 50 of the Act, has no legal right to get a permanent connection.

In this case, it is true that the appellant was given a temporary connection. It is equally true that the period of the temporary connection had run out. However, the ground given by the authority for disconnection is a ground, which is not seen recognised as such in law. We do note that the title of the appellant to enjoy the connection had expired on the expiry of the period of the temporary connection; but, that is not the ground on which the temporary connection was disconnected. It is not a case, where the temporary connection was disconnected on the ground that the period of temporary connection had come to an end. We note that the application for extension of the temporary connection, according to the appellant, was filed on 19.08.2016.

In such circumstances, we are inclined to think that the judgment under attack must be modified and the impugned order must be set aside; but, with the further rider that this will not mean that the appellant will be entitled to enjoy the connection. This is for the reason that the right which the appellant had was only a temporary connection. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only for the reason that the reasoning given for disconnection cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed; the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge will stand modified as hereunder:

The impugned order ordering disconnection will stand set aside; but, we make it clear that this will not automatically result in the connection being restored to the appellant. It will be open to the appellant to press the application for extension of the temporary connection.