S. N. Kapoor ( 1 ) IN this revision petition two questions arise for consideration : (i) Whether under Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter called the IE Act for short) MCD could recover the entire cost of capital expenditure for installing electric connection in the flats of the respondent located in a multiflat housing complex? (ii ). Whether the petitioners being transferees of a person allegedly guilty of misuse are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner MCD/desu to install electric connection under certain conditions? ( 2 ) FACTS giving an occasion to this revision petition, are briefly stated as under : Al plot No, 61/41, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi of Lal Chand Anand there were three electric connections in the name of Krishanawanti w/o. Lal Chand Anand for tubewell, gardening and domestic light. In 1980 Krishanawanti and her partner constructed a housing complex on the said plot. Respondent no. 1 and 2 Arvind Kr. Gupta and Bhagwanti Devi purchased two flats (F-102 and M-s) therein. Both of them applied for separate electric connection in their own name by depositing a sum of Rs. 1,500. 00. Their applications were rejected and the amount was also refunded on 6th March, 1984 for want of completion certificate and misuser of electricity by respondent no. 3. R. . P. Anand and sons. Electricity of Krishnawanti was disconnected on 20th December, 1985 and thereby putting the plaintiffs in total darkness; Suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 on 27. 2. 86. Till 21 st March, 1986 written statement was not filed by DESU. On 30th May, 1986, DESU was directed to provide electric connection to the respondents so the respondents complying with the necessary formalities and on depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00- in Court. ( 3 ) MCD/desu filed and appeal against this order. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional District Judge rejected the appeal directing DESU to restore electric supply to the respondents and further directed DESU to provide them separate "electric connections on completion of necessary formalities and payment of legally payable all other charges excepting amount to be spent towards capital expenditure in installing L. V. mains, thus without directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,59,75 1. 42/- towards their payable share apart from the other amount of sum of Rs. 2,76,307. 1,59,75 1. 42/- towards their payable share apart from the other amount of sum of Rs. 2,76,307. 16/- to be borne by them. ( 5 ) DESU feeling aggrieved filed this revision petition. ( 6 ) I have the learned counsel for MCD and gone through the record. The contention, of the learned counsel for MCD is that learned Additional District Judge was wrong in interpreting Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter called the IE Act for short ). ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, before proceeding further it would be useful to refer to Section 22 of the IE Act which is reproduced below : "where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of, supply shall, except in so far as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the licensee, be entitled, on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled in similar circumstances to a corresponding supply: Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of energy for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such minimum annual sum as will give him a reasonable return on the capital expenditure, and will cover other standing charges incurred by him in order to meet the possible maximum demand for those premises the sum payable to be determined in case of difference or dispute by arbitration". ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the DESU is that it is not logical to say that since DESU has provided electricity to West Punjabi Bagh area it was obligatory on DESU to provide electric connection to every new residential building or complex in the entire West Punjabi Bagh area without demanding any amount as charge for augmenting the existing L. V. mains and new sub-station, in view of the Sec. 22 referred to above. The infrastructure which was to be installed in Sixtees could not be sufficient to provide electricity ever increasing population of residential and commercial consumers. According to the scheme formulated by the DEsu in January. 1985, total estimated outlay was Rs. 4,36,058. 58/-, Respondent No. 3 Ram Lal anand, the promoter, was required to contribute a sum of Rs. 1,59. 751. The infrastructure which was to be installed in Sixtees could not be sufficient to provide electricity ever increasing population of residential and commercial consumers. According to the scheme formulated by the DEsu in January. 1985, total estimated outlay was Rs. 4,36,058. 58/-, Respondent No. 3 Ram Lal anand, the promoter, was required to contribute a sum of Rs. 1,59. 751. 42/-to provide electricity to their newly built complex and for completing the scheme. The balance Rs 2,76. 307. 16/- was to be borne by DESU. Respondent No. 3 failed to deposit the amount of his share. As such electricity could not be provided as per scheme. ( 9 ) IT appears that while the DESU wanted to recover a big, chunk of capital expenditure in one go against the requirement of Sec 22 of the I. E. Act. the respondents asserted that they were not liable to pay any additional amount on account of capital expenditure involved. It is unimaginable that in installing a new electric connection in a multiflat complex, DESU would not be made to undertake any additional capital expenditure. Mode to replenish capital expenditure is provided under Sec. 22 DESU/mcd as well as the consumers both are required to comply with the provision of Sec. 22. ( 10 ) NOW, the question is whether the said capital expenditure could be recovered by the licensee MCD/ DESU from the consumer or it is required to be recovered in part or it is not recoverable at all? If it is to be recovered in part then how the entire capital expenditure is required to be recovered?. These are the questions staring this court in the face for an answer. ( 11 ) A reading of the Sec. 22 referred to above indicates that the entire capital expenditure could not be recovered by DESU in lump sum and in one go. The purpose of Sec. 22 is to save the "licensee" like DESU for incurring any capital loss on account of installing additional connections. ( 11 ) A reading of the Sec. 22 referred to above indicates that the entire capital expenditure could not be recovered by DESU in lump sum and in one go. The purpose of Sec. 22 is to save the "licensee" like DESU for incurring any capital loss on account of installing additional connections. Every consumer shall be entitled to have electric connection under Sec. 22 subject to the condition that he agrees to pay to the licensee "such minimum sum as will give him a reasonable return on the capital expenditure , and will cover other standing charges incurred by him in order to meet the possible maximum demand for those premises": ( 12 ) IT means that on the capital expenditure only a minimum annual reasonable return is required to be paid by the consumer to protect the licensee like MCD/desu in installing additional infrastructure for new connection. And what is the reasonable return on the capital expenditure is provided in Clause Iy of the Schedule to this Act. This schedule specifies provisions which shall be deemed, to have been incorporated in every licence guaranteed by the State u/s. 3 (2) (f) of the Act. Relevant portion of this clause VI reads as under : "clause VI : Requisition for Supply to Owners or Occupiers in Vicinity. This schedule specifies provisions which shall be deemed, to have been incorporated in every licence guaranteed by the State u/s. 3 (2) (f) of the Act. Relevant portion of this clause VI reads as under : "clause VI : Requisition for Supply to Owners or Occupiers in Vicinity. (1) Where, after distributing mains have been laid down under the provisions of Claus Iy or Clause V and the supply of energy through those mains or any of them has commenced, a requisition is made by the owner or occupier of any premises situate within the area of supply requiring the licensee to supply energy for such premises, the licensee shall, within one month from making of the requisition, or within such longer period as the Electrical Inspector may allow supply, and save in so far as he is prevented from doing so by cyclones, floods, storms or other occurrences behind his control, continue to supply, energy in accordance with the requisition; Provided , first that the licensee shall not be bound to comply with any such requisition unless and until the person making it - (a) Within fourteen days after the service on him by the licensee of a notice in writing on this behalf, tenders to the licensee a written contract, in a form approved by the State Government, duly executed and with sufficient security, binding himself to take a supply of energy for not less than two years to such amount as will (assure revenue not exceeding fifteen per centum of the cost of the serviceline required to comply with the requisition, and (b) if required by the licensee so to do , pays to the licensee the cost of so much of any service-line as may be laid down or placed for the purposes of the supply upon the property in respect of which the requisition is made, and of so much of any service-line as it may be necessary for the said purposes to lay down or place beyond one hundred feet from the licensee s distributing main, although not on that property: 4. Owner or Occupier - Requisition for supply cane be made either by the owner or the occupier of the premises where supply is required. The occupier must be a lawful occupier and not a trespasser. The building should be an authoriesd one. (Smt. K. S. Susheels and Anr. v. Bangalore and Ors. Owner or Occupier - Requisition for supply cane be made either by the owner or the occupier of the premises where supply is required. The occupier must be a lawful occupier and not a trespasser. The building should be an authoriesd one. (Smt. K. S. Susheels and Anr. v. Bangalore and Ors. AIR 1988 Kant. 178)". ( 13 ) IN DCM Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Engineer. (HMT Sub-Divn.), R. S. E. B. Kota, AIR 1988 Rajasthan 64, Rajasthan High Court took the view that only 15 per cent of the capital expenditure i. e. cost of service-line required to comply with the requisition could be charged, it was held by Rajasthan High Court in Pr. 18 of the judgment as under : "18. These provisions also clearly indicate the rationale behind the provision for recovery of minimum charges from the consumer s obligation arises to pay an amount in excess of the cost of electricity consumed. The minimum charges are to be paid by the consumer to ensure a reasonable return on the capital expenditure incurred by the Board as cost of services line required to comply with the requisition of that consumer. The reasonable return is indicated by the statute as an amount not exceeding 15 per cent of the cost of the service line required for making the supply to that consumer. This obviously is the concept of minimum charges which the Board is empowered by statute to recover from the consumer within the maximum limit prescribed by compelling the consumer to undertake such obligation in an agreement duly executed before the board s obligation to supply electricity to that consumer can arise". ( 14 ) IT may be mentioned that similar views had also been expressed by Calcutta and Kerala High Courts in Saila Bala v. Chairman, Darjeeling Municiplity, AIR 1936 (Calcutta) 265, M/s. Man "industrial Corporation Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, ILR 1976 (1) Ker. 435. With respect , I concur with the view taken in these decisions to indicate the true concept of minimum charges and in my humble opinion no different view could be taken on the basis of the foregoing statutory provisions. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, ILR 1976 (1) Ker. 435. With respect , I concur with the view taken in these decisions to indicate the true concept of minimum charges and in my humble opinion no different view could be taken on the basis of the foregoing statutory provisions. ( 15 ) AS regards the second point of misuser of electricity connections the question of misuser would not arise in the cases of newly installed electric connections and for the fault of Ram Lal Anand or Krishnawanti, new occupants like plaintiffs, who have been made victim of circumstances, would not be made to suffer. So far as Krishnawanti or Ram Lal anand are concerned , before proceeding further it is required to be seen the alleged misuser. It is evident that three separate connections were granted , one for domestic purpose, other for gardening and third one for domestic light. Krishnawanti and Ram Lal Anand, respondents could obviously not transfer the load sanctioned in the name of Krishnawanti to any other person, including the plaintiff/respondent in violation of Clause 4 of Delhi Electricity Control Order 1959 (hereinafter called the "deco" for short ). Sub- clause (4) of Clause 4 of DECO reads as under : "notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or -agreement, no consumer shall : (1 ). . . . (2 ). . . . . . (3 ). . . . . (4) Used load for purpose other -than the purpose for which it was sanctioned in his favour without the permission of Administrator viz. , a load sanctioned for domestic/commercial purposes shall not be used for industrial purposes or a load sanctioned for domestic purpose shall not be used for commercial purpose without the permission of the Administrator. " ( 16 ) IN view of the fact that it is not alleged by Krishnawanti or Ram Lal Anand tha\ they had obtained any special permission of the Chief Commissioner to transfer any of these sanctioned connections in accordance with rules, and if they had transferred any electric load to other persons including residents of multiflat complex, they were certainly misusing it. Accordingly, Krishnawanti and Ram Lal Anand would not be entitled to transfer any electric load to any person and could use electric connection through aforesaid three meters only in accordance with the agreement and for the purpose for which these three electric connections were installed. Accordingly, Krishnawanti and Ram Lal Anand would not be entitled to transfer any electric load to any person and could use electric connection through aforesaid three meters only in accordance with the agreement and for the purpose for which these three electric connections were installed. ( 17 ) THIS revision is accordingly allowed with the following directions : (a) Respondent No. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to electric connection installed in their flats subject to compliance of entering into the requisite agreement and completing other formalities required to be fulfilled and subject to agreeing to pay their share for two new connections in 15 per cent of the total capital expenditure involved in installing electric connection in the said multi-flat complex, as minimum annual charges as required under Sec, 22 of the I. E. Act read with Clause VI of the Schedule of the Act. In case of failure to give the aforesaid undertaking within two months, electric connection installed under the direction of the court shall be disconnected. (b) The respondents Krishanawanti and Ram Lal Anand or any person claiming under them shall not use the three electric connections in the name of Krishnawanti for any purposes other than the purpose for which the three connections were installed. In case of violation of these directions MCD/ DESU shall be entitled to disconnect these three electric connections. (c) None of the respondents shall be entitled to supply any electric connection to any other resident of the complex without obtaining any specific permission from the Chief Commissioner under Sub-Clause (4) of Clause 4 of DECO. (d) DESU shall issue connection to every applicant /resident of this complex if he complies with the direction given in a and shall not make them run from piller to post. (e) This order shall not be bar against DESU to take other legal actions against the respondents or other residents of this multi-flat complex as is provided under the law in case of misuser etc. ( 18 ) PARTIES are left to bear their own costs. ( 19 ) A copy of this order to be sent to the learned Trial Court through learned District Judge for information and to proceed in accordance with law.