Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 499 (JHR)

Vani Insulation Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd.

2017-03-08

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to supply electricity to the petitioner''s company under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He has made an application in the prescribed format as per Annexure-2 dated 02.02.2016, which has not yet been decided by the licensee, respondent no. 1. 3. Respondent no. 1, licensee has filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit. 4. Petitioner contends that he is a transferee pendente lite from one M/s Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd.. It is submitted that Title Suit No. 3/59 of 1971-85 instituted by the respondent no. 1 herein for eviction of petitioner''s vendor was allowed in their favour. However, in Title Appeal No. 12/07 of 1986-95 by judgment and order dated 31.05.1996, the Learned Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur set aside the judgment and decree on contest, Annexure-6. Respondent no. 1 being aggrieved has preferred Second Appeal No. 67 of 1996, which is pending before this Court. Petitioner has also been impleaded as party respondent no. 2 in the said appeal vide order dated 10.05.2016, Annexure-7 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It is submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity (Supply Code Regulation), 2015, the licensee cannot sit over the matter or refuse electricity connection. 5. The respondent-licensee has filed counter affidavit raising question about locus of the petitioner to seek electricity connection in view of the pendency of the Second Appeal No. 67 of 1996 in respect of the subject matter of the property itself. It is also submitted that pending adjudication over the right of the respondent no. 1 vis-a-vis the vendor of the petitioner, status quo should be maintained. 6. From the stand of the respective parties on records, it is evident that the application of the petitioner for electric connection has remained unattended though there is statutory prescription in law under Section 43 of the Electrical Act, 2003, which is quoted hereinunder:- "43. Duty to supply on request. 6. From the stand of the respective parties on records, it is evident that the application of the petitioner for electric connection has remained unattended though there is statutory prescription in law under Section 43 of the Electrical Act, 2003, which is quoted hereinunder:- "43. Duty to supply on request. - (1) [Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution] licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply: Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: [Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, "application" means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.] (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1): Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission. (3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default." 7. The Electricity (Supply Code Regulation), 2015 lays down the procedure for exercise of power by the authority under the Act of 2003. At this stage therefore, it is deemed appropriate that the respondent no. 1, licensee would take an informed decision on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 30 days as required under Section 43 of the Act of 2003. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 8. Let it, however, be made clear that any observations made herein above would not be taken as comment on the merits of the case of the parties.