Subodhkumar Manikchand Jain vs Assistant Engineer

Anoop V. Mohta, J.—Taken out from final hearing board. Heard finally.

The petitioner purchased the property from the erstwhile owner in auction upon whom there were electricity charges, which were unpaid. Therefore, the respondents refused to grant any electricity connection to the petitioner. This Court after hearing both the parties, by order dated 4.5.2009 on a condition of depositing the money, directed to provide electricity connection. The petitioner accordingly deposited the amount in this Court. The amount is still lying and invested, as the respondents were unable to withdraw the same on filing an undertaking on affidavit as ordered on 24.8.2010.

We are concerned with the power of respondents to refuse new electricity connection to the petitioner, who is now owner of the property purchased legally through an auction initiated by the Provident Fund Department. The legality of the said auction was never under challenge. The petitioner, therefore, being owner of the property is unable to get the new electricity connection as per the procedure so prescribed by the respondents. There is nothing pointed out specifically about the power of respondents to refuse such new electricity connection, if applied by the owner. To put such condition to deposit and/or pay the arrears of electricity dues of erstwhile owner is also not accepted by the Division Bench of this Court, which has expressed specifically the similar view in the case of Jaisukhlal N. Bhuta and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Others, . The Division Bench has referred the Supreme Court judgments dealing with the similar aspect based upon the existing provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Court has observed in paragraph no. 9 as under:

"9. In view of the facts and circumstances and in terms of the principle laid down by the Apex Court which we have followed also in the cases, we are of the view that the action of the respondents of refusal to provide the new electricity connection to the petitioners. Trust is illegal and unsustainable in law. The petitioners are entitled for the new electricity connection in accordance with the provisions of law, if they are otherwise eligible." Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and considering the issue so decided by this Court, we are inclined to allow the Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause (i).

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that referring to reply dated 25.6.2007 filed with the petition and specifically Regulation 10.5 as reproduced and Commercial Circular No. 53 dated 7.5.2007 though conceded to the judgment so referred above, insisted that the amount so deposited if petitioner wants to withdraw, it should be subject to undertaking as the issue is pending in Supreme Court, i.e. whether electricity dues constitute a charge on the property so far as the transferor and the transferee of the unit are concerned. We are not inclined to accept even this submission in view of clear judgment given and the issue so reflected above by this Court in Jaisukhlal N. Bhuta (supra). However, we are inclined to keep all the points open so far as this issue is concerned.

Therefore, the following order:

The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i). The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount so deposited with accrued interest, if any, by taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. The Registry is also directed to release the amount by following the due procedure of law.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. There will be no order as to costs.