AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner, by way of present writ petition, has approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents, i.e. H.P. State Electricity
Board and Municipal Council, Mandi, to provide electricity connection to him.
Case of the petitioner is that he, alongwith his family, is residing in double storeyed houseÂcumÂshop constructed upon land comprised in khasra
No. 795/757/1, 795/757 and 752/1, measuring 32.85 sq. mtrs., situated in Mohal Paddal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. and he was holder of
Electricity Meter No. PMÂ410, which was disconnected, whereupon he had applied for reconnection on 29th December, 2015, but, it was not
reconnected, rather, another electricity connection, provided to the petitioner, was also disconnected.
It has been averred in the writ petition that on 20th April, 1990, petitioner had preferred a civil suit against Administrator, Mandi Municipal
Committee, with respect to the land mentioned supra, which was decreed in his favour on 3rd February, 1992, passing a decree for permanent
prohibitory injunction qua the said land against the defendant therein; the said judgment and decree was not assailed further and has attained finality. It
has further been averred that the electricity connection has been disconnected by the respondents for want of No Objection Certificate issued by
respondent No. 3ÂMunicipal Council. Also, that the petitioner is running a shop in the ground floor of the building to earn his livelihood, but, the
respondents are not providing electricity to him intentionally and deliberately causing great hardship to him despite the fact that petitioner is ready and
willing to deposit the requisite charges of reconnection of electricity meter, which has wrongly been disconnected without issuing any notice to the
petitioner, resulting into depriving him of basic amenities of life whereas there is no default in making payment of electricity bill and other charges on
the part of petitioner.
It is also pleaded that in any case, if respondent No. 3 is desirous to demolish the construction raised by the petitioner on the land in question, a civil
suit is necessary to be instituted. According to petitioner, respondentÂBoard, once upon, had agreed to install electricity connection without obtaining
No Objection Certificate, but, despite that, connection has not been provided till date. Lastly, it has been alleged that respondents are discriminating the
petitioner as so many similarly situated persons have been provided electricity connection and one Smt. Sheela Devi has also been provided connection
on order passed by this High Court.
Respondent No. 3ÂMunicipal Council, rebutting the claim of the petitioner, in their reply, have contended that that the petitioner has not placed true
facts before this Court and as a matter of fact, petitioner is an encroacher over the suit land as the land comprised in khasra No. 795/757/1, 795/757
and 752/1, measuring 32.85 sq. mtrs., owned by State of Himachal Pradesh, has been encroached upon by the petitioner by erecting two storeyed
building without permission of Municipal Council. Judgment and decree, dated 3rd February, 1992, passed in favour of the petitioner, has not been
disputed, but, it has been stated that at that time, the petitioner had constructed only single storeyed shop on the land in question and electricity
connection was obtained by him by misrepresentation.
It is further case of respondent No. 3ÂMunicipal Council that after having knowledge of encroachment, on institution of ejectment proceedings
against the petitioner, Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi, had passed ejectment order, dated 23rd June, 1993 (Annexure RÂ3/1) with
respect to land comprised in khasra No. 795/757/1, measuring 21.25 sq. mtrs. and khasra No. 796/757/2 and 752/1, measuring 11.60, with fine of ₹
1,000/Â, but, the petitioner, instead of vacating the land in question, started encroachment over the adjoining land wherefrom he was again ordered to
be ejected by the Assistant Collector First Grade, vide order, dated 21st January, 1995 (Annexure RÂ3/2). Despite passing of ejectment orders, dated
23rd June, 1993 and 21st January, 1995 (supra), the petitioner further encroached upon another piece of adjoining land comprised in khasra No.
1016/795/757/3, measuring 208.09 sq. mtrs., situated in Mohal Paddal, wherefrom also, he was ordered to be ejected by Assistant Collector First
Grade vide order, dated 18th January, 2016, with fine of ₹ 50,000/Â (Annexure RÂ3/3).
It has further been contended on behalf of respondent No.3ÂMunicipal Council that petitioner, being a habitual encroacher, has also encroached
upon acquired/controlled width of NHÂ21, for which a notice, dated 19th October, 2015 (Annexure RÂ3/4) to remove the encroachment has been
served upon him by Assistant Engineer, NH SubÂDivision HPPWD Pandoh.
Lastly, it has been contended that for compliance of various orders passed by this High Court from time to time, respondent No. 3, i.e. Executive
Officer, Municipal Council, Mandi, had issued notice, dated 7th December, 2015 (Annexure RÂ3/5) to petitioner to restore the land condition and stop
the construction, but, the petitioner did not comply with the notice and ultimately, letter, dated 21st December, 2015 (Annexure RÂ1/D), issued under
compelling circumstances by respondent No. 3, resulted into disconnection of the petitioner and now, new connection applied by the petitioner could
not be granted for unauthorized construction.
Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a separate reply stating therein that respondentÂBoard had installed two electricity meters, one of which was
in the name of petitionerÂSurender Kumar whereas another was in the name of Smt. Anita (wife of petitioner), and on receiving several requests
from Assistant Engineer, National Highway SubÂDivision, HPPWD, Pandoh (Annexure RÂ1/A), Executive Engineer, National Highway Division,
HPPWD, Pandoh (Annexure RÂ1/B), Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mandi (Annexure RÂ1/C), Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi (Annexure
RÂ1/D) and judgment and order passed by Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi (Annexure RÂ1/E), the respondentÂBoard had
issued notice/intimation, dated 7th December, 2015 (Annexure RÂ 1/F) to the petitionerÂSurender Kumar and his wife Anita Kumari directing to
settle the matter with the concerned department within fifteen days. The said notice was delivered upon them on 11th December, 2015 at 3.30 p.m.
For receiving no response/reply from the petitioner, respondentÂBoard temporarily disconnected their connection. However, petitioner and his wife
did not respond despite temporary disconnection, which resulted into permanent disconnection on 29th December, 2015, with intimation to Tehsildar,
Sadar, Mandi, vide letter, dated 18th January, 2016 (Annexure RÂ1/G).
It has further been contended on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 that the letters (Annexures RÂ1/A, RÂ1/B and RÂ1/C), were addressed to
petitionerÂSurender Kumar, copies whereof were endorsed to officer(s)/official(s) of respondentÂBoard requesting for disconnection of electricity
connection. Order, dated 22nd December, 2015 (Annexure RÂ1/E), passed by Assistant Collector First Grade directing the Executive Engineer of the
respondentÂBoard to disconnect the electricity connection, was passed in a case instituted against the petitioner and despite having the knowledge of
aforesaid notices/letters issued for disconnection, he has not disclosed all these facts in the petition and has not come to the Court with clean hands
withholding and concealing the material information and facts.
Lastly, it has been stated that electric connection to one Sheela Devi, was provided on the direction/order (Annexure RÂ1/J) passed by this Court
in CWP No. 2667 of 2017, titled Sheela Devi versus HPSEBL and others.
Passing of judgment and decree, dated 3rd February, 1992 with respect to land comprised in Khasra No. 795/757/1, 795/757/2 and 752/1,
measuring 32.85 sq. mtrs, situated in Mauja Paddal, District Mandi, is not in dispute, however, perusal of the judgment unambiguously indicates that
the suit filed against Administrator ADM, Mandi Municipal Committee, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against demolition of the shop vide
notice No. 417, dated 27th March, 1990, issued under Section 207 of H.P. Municipal Act, 1968, was decreed in favour of the petitioner on the ground
that the Municipal Council had failed to establish that the said demolition notice was delivered to petitioner within six months from completion of the
building, as required under law. Therefore, suit of petitioner for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit land was decreed for nonÂcompliance of
provisions of law mandatory to follow for issuing demolition notice under Municipal Act. Thus, judgment and decree is of no help to the petitioner and
it does not restrain the Municipal Council or other authorities to initiate fresh proceedings for his ejectment, in accordance with law, to remove the
unauthorised possession and also from pursuing the ejectment proceedings initiated before the Assistant Collector First Grade under Section 163 of the
H.P. Land Revenue Act, prior to or after passing of the decree and asking the respondentÂBoard to disconnect the electricity connection on account
of ejectment order passed against him and also does not prohibit the respondentÂBoard from disconnecting the electricity meter on the request of
concerned competent authority exercising power on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, the owner of the land in question.
As evident from the material placed on record by respondents, petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Vide order, dated 23rd June
1993 (Annexure RÂ3/1), he was evicted from the land in question by the Assistant Collector First Grade. Perusal of this order indicates that at that
time, he had constructed a kiosk in Khasra No. 795/757, measuring 21.25 sq. mtrs., using another 11.60 sq. mtrs., comprised in Khasra No. 795/757
and 752/1 as courtyard (Sehan). From order dated 20th January 1995 (Annexure RÂ3/2), it is established that instead of complying with previous
eviction order, petitioner continued to raise further construction, which resulted into initiating another proceedings for eviction and passing of the said
order (Annexure RÂ3/2). Petitioner did not stop here, but,
eviction order, dated 18th January, 2016 (Annexure RÂ3/3), wherein a request was also made to Executive Engineer (Electricity) and Executive
Engineer (I&PH) to disconnect the electricity and water connection(s) of the petitioner. Copy of this order was forwarded to Assistant Engineer
(Electricity) on 24th February, 2016 by Senior Executive Engineer, HPSEB for necessary action. But, prior to passing of order, dated 18th January,
2016 (Annexure RÂ1/E) by Assistant Collector First Grade, a notice, dated 15th October, 2015, was issued by Assistant Engineer, NH SubÂDivision,
HPPWD, Pandoh, to the petitioner directing him to stop unauthorized construction/encroachment in acquired/controlled width on NHÂ21 at Km
200/890Â905 with endorsement of the said notice to Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd. Division Mandi, requesting him to disconnect electricity
connection of the petitioner, whereupon the Senior Executive Engineer, on 2nd November, 2015, further directed Assistant Engineer, HPSEB to
submit fact finding report.
Thereafter, another notice, dated 19th October, 2015 (Annexure RÂ1/B) was issued by Executive Engineer, NH Division HPPWD, Pandoh, to the
petitioner to stop unauthorized construction on PWD land at KmÂ200/890 to 200/905 till demarcation is conducted by Revenue Department. This
notice was also endorsed to Executive Engineer, HPSEB with request to disconnect electricity connection of the petitioner. This notice/letter was also
sent to Assistant Engineer, HPSEB on 2nd November, 2015 with letter Annexure RÂ1/A. Similarly, a notice, dated 7th December, 2015 (Annexure
RÂ1/C) was issued to petitioner by Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mandi for raising construction without permission with endorsement to
Executive Engineer, HPSEB/I&PH to disconnect electricity/water connection(s), which was further sent to Assistant Engineer (HPSEB) also by
Senior Executive Engineer, HPSEB on 9th December, 2015. RespondentÂBoard, even after receiving numerous requests from the concerned
authorities, has not disconnected his meter without notice, but, petitioner has been duly informed vide notice dated 7th December, 2015 (Annexure
RÂ1/F) with request to settle the matter with Executive Engineer, NH Division, HPPWD, Pandoh within fifteen days and initially electricity supply
was disconnected temporarily and on receiving no response for fifteen days, the connection was permanently disconnected on 29 th December, 2015,
after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, Tehsildar Sadar, Mandi, on the basis of previous eviction orders, dated 23rd June,
1993 and 20th January, 1995, had also issued direction to disconnect water/electricity connection(s) of the petitioner vide letter, dated 21st December,
2015 (Annexure RÂ1/D).
Petitioner has alleged that respondentÂBoard is providing electricity connection to similarly situated persons, including one Sheela Devi. In
response to it, respondentÂBoard has placed on record order, dated 21st December, 2017 (Annexure RÂ1/J), passed by this Court in CWP No. 2667
of 2017 wherein at the time of issuance of notice to respondents, following order has been passed:
“Response be positively filed within a period of ten days. In the meanwhile, with the petitioner's depositing the amount of arrears, pending
consideration of the writ petition, respondents shall re energize the electricity connection of the petitioner. Petitioner undertakes to clear all arrears
by tomorrow. List on 3.1.2018.â€
It is clear from the perusal of the aforesaid order that reÂenergizing of the electricity connection of Sheela Devi, vide this order, was an interim
order subject to depositing the amount of arrears, but, pending consideration of writ petition and this was necessarily required to be confirmed on final
disposal. This order nowhere suggests that this Court had ever directed the respondentÂBoard to continue with the electricity connection after
disposal of the writ petition even in absence of confirmation of the said order, if not permissible to be continued under law. We have enquired about
the fate of said CWP No. 2667 of 2017, whereupon it transpires that on 3rd January, 2018, the said writ petition was disposed of as not pressed.
Order dated 3rd January, 2018, passed in the writ petition reads as under:
“In view of intervening developments, more so, for the reason that the electricity connection stands energized, learned counsel for the petitioner,
under instructions, does not press the present petition. As such, present petitions stands disposed of as not pressed alongwith pending application(s), if
any.â€
Vide order dated 21 st December, 2017, re energizing of the electricity connection of Smt. Sheela Devi was ordered pending consideration of the
writ petition and next date was fixed for 3rd January, 2018. On 3rd January, 2018, statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioner therein
that in view of the intervening developments, more so, for the reason that electricity connection stands energized, he has instructions not to press the
petition.
Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that there was any order passed in favour of Smt. Sheela Devi (petitioner in CWP No. 2667 of 2017) to continue
her electricity connection even after disposal of the writ petition, if otherwise it was not to be continued under law. Thus, respondentÂBoard is also
directed to deal with the case of said Sheela Devi, in accordance with law, without being influenced by interim order, dated 21st December, 2017,
passed by this Court, which was in force pending consideration of the writ petition as at the time of final disposal, such direction was not continued.
RespondentÂBoard may continue the said electricity connection, if permissible, but, not under the garb of interim order, dated 21st December,
2017 (supra), which is nonÂexistent after final disposal of the main writ petition.
It is clear from the discussion made hereinabove that this Court has not ordered to continue any illegal connection in favour of any person,
including Smt. Sheela Devi, petitioner in CWP No. 2667 of 2017. Moreover, continuation of an illegal connection by respondents in favour of any
person does not entitle the petitioner to continue his electricity connection in the premises constructed upon the land encroached by him belonging to
the State of Himachal Pradesh. Respondents should deal with all connections provided to unauthorized constructions/ buildings raised encroaching
upon the Government land in similar fashion. Respondents should give equal treatment to all similarly situated persons without favouring any
encroacher.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves to be burdened with costs, however, we are refraining from passing any such
order.
In view of above discussion, with aforesaid observations required to be complied with by the respondents, present writ petition is dismissed being
devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.