Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 425 (MP)

ALLAHABAD BANK, KATNI v. M. P. E. B. , JABALPUR

2002-04-17

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition seeks to quash the order Annexure P-10 dated 9-8-2001 demanding a sum of rs. 5,08,781-73, the amount of judgment and decree passed in C. S. No. 82 B/95 passed by the Court of 9th A. D. J. Jabalpur on 30-9-1996. The M. P. E. B. threatened disconnection of the electricity iri case payment was not made within 7 days by the Allahabad bank. ( 2 ) THE petitioner avers that M/s M. P. Carbide and Chemicals Ltd. applied to m. P. E. B. for supply of electricity and entered into a H. T. agreement. As per terms of the agreement the company was required to deposit with the Board the security in cash equivalent to one month assessed electrical charges and further to furnish security of bank approved by the Board for a sum equal to another one month's assessed electrical charges amounting to Rs. 16 lacs for due performance of the terms and conditions of the said agreement. M/s M. P. Carbide and chemicals Ltd. approached the bank and bank issued a bank guarantee for a sum of rs. 16 lacs in favour of the M. P. E. B. The bank did not pay the guarantee amount to the board on demand. Hence, the suits for recovery of Rs 20 lacs and for recovery of Rs. 816500/- were filed by the M. P. E. B. against the petitioner. During the pendency of the civil suits the petitioner Bank paid the amount which was subject matter of the bank guarantees i. e. Rs. 16 lacs and Rs. 7. 10 lacs. There were two civil suits with respect to the aforesaid amount. They were decided by a common judgment dated 30-9-1996. It was directed that the bank shall pay compound interest @ 18% p. a. on Rs. 20 lacs and rs. 816500/- for the period from 24-12-1991 to 20-2-1995. The petitioner Bank contends that the amount was paid to the Board on 15-3-1997 and thereafter the Board started demanding Rs. 508781-73 from the Bank on the pretext that the said amount was still due in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by learned A. D. J. Notice annexure P-1o was Issued on 9-8-2001 threatening disconnection of the electricity u/s 24 (1) of the Electricity Act, 1910. 508781-73 from the Bank on the pretext that the said amount was still due in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by learned A. D. J. Notice annexure P-1o was Issued on 9-8-2001 threatening disconnection of the electricity u/s 24 (1) of the Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner submits that method adopted by respondent 1 is illegal and not provided by law. The petitioner submits that the entire amount has been paid and nothing is due. ( 3 ) THE M. P. E. B. has filed the return. It is contended that amount is due in accordance with the decision of A. D. J. dated 30-9-1996. The board has not made any wrong calculation. It is submitted that the dues pertain to the supply of electric energy for which payment the petitioner Bank has given bank guarantee. The bank has made part payment of Rs. 43,73,503/- against, the demand of rs. 48,82,284-73. Balance of Rs. 5,08,781-73 is still due. The petitioner by not making the payment for six years is liable to pay interest on the said amount. ( 4 ) THE first question for consideration is whether it was open to the respondent to make a threat for disconnection of the electricity of the petitioner/bank u/s 24 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which is quoted below"24 (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge-for energy or any (sum, other than a charge for energy) due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be, supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer. ( 5 ) A bare reading of the S. 24 makes it clear that S. 24 applies to a consumer. Bank is not the consumer in the instant case. Since the Bank is not consumer action cannot be taken u/s. 24. The notice threatening disconnection is thus liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) A bare reading of the S. 24 makes it clear that S. 24 applies to a consumer. Bank is not the consumer in the instant case. Since the Bank is not consumer action cannot be taken u/s. 24. The notice threatening disconnection is thus liable to be quashed. It is unauthorised and without jurisdiction. ( 6 ) THERE appears to be some dispute as to the exact amount payable under the decree. The proper course for the Board is to file the execution of the decree and to get the amount settled In execution. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Notice annexure P-10 is quashed. It is directed that m. P. E. B. shall not disconnect the connection of the Bank for recovery of the amount in question. Cost on parties. Petition allowed. .