Chattisgarh High Court
Pravir Kumar Das vs R.C.P. Infratech Private Ltd. ... on 14 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 482 of 2022
Pravir Kumar Das, S/o Shri R.L. Das, aged about 68 years, R/o F-03,
Sector I, VIP City Kushabhau Thakre Ward, Urkura Road Saddhu,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
1. R.C.P. Infratech Private Ltd. (Earlier Name R.P. Real Estate Pvt.
Ltd.) Through Managing Director Shri Rakesh Pandey Son of Late
R.C. Pandey Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of A-5, Anupam
(Wrongly Mentioned As Anuam) Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.)
2. Presedent, Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Shastri
Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
3. The Adjudicating Authority, Real Estate Regulatory Authority
(RERA), Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Superintendent (Wrongly Mentioned As Superintendent
Engineer), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.
City Circle - 1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
14.09.2022
Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent
No. 1/writ petitioner and Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel, appearing for
respondent No. 4.
2. Respondents No. 2 and 3 being regulatory authorities of electricity,
they are formal parties, and therefore, notice need not be issued to them.
3. This writ appeal is preferred against an order dated 27.07.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 4157 of 2021.
4. The order of the learned Single Judge, reads as follows:
"Mr. Shikhar Sharma and Mr. R.S. Thakur, counsel for
the petitioner.
Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, P.L. for State/respondents 2 & 3.
The petition is admitted for hearing.
Issue notice to respondents 1 & 4 on payment of PF as
per rules.
Let notice be issued on I.A. No.01 as well.
Considering the direction that was given in the original
order dated 16.03.2021 and also considering the contention
of the petitioner that they have already completed the
requisite formalities with the respondent No. 4 for providing
electricity connection enabling respondent No. 1 in getting
the permanent electricity connection, till the next date of
hearing the respondents are directed not to initiate any
coercive step against the petitioner in the execution
proceedings initiated arising out of the order Annexure P-2
dated 16.03.2021.
List this case along with WPC No. 3493/2021."
5. Mr. Prateek Sharma submits that on the basis of a brochure,
published by respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, assuring to provide
complete developed plot having all amenities, the appellant purchased a
residential plot from respondent No.1/writ petitioner by sale deed dated
03.11.2009 in Sector-I in respect of a project styled as VIP city in
Kushabhau Thakre Ward, Urkura Road, Saddu, District Raipur and the
appellant constructed his residential house and has been residing
thereon since 2013 onwards. The responsibility of providing electricity
connection lay in the hands of the colonizer, i.e., respondent No. 1/writ
petitioner. However, the respondent No. 1 did not provide electricity till
date though more than 8 years have gone by, as a result of which, the
appellant is compelled to take temporary electric connection at the rate of
Rs. 10.50 per unit, whereas the applicable charge in respect of
permanent electricity connection is Rs. 4 per unit only.
6. As there was continued failure to provide electricity connection,
which is a basic necessity of life, the appellant filed a petition before Real
Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), making a grievance in respect of not
providing permanent electricity connection and by an order dated
16.03.2021, RERA directed the respondent No. 1 to provide permanent
electricity connection within two months. Thereafter, appellant started the
execution proceedings due to non-compliance of the order dated
16.03.2021 by the respondent No. 1 and an order was passed to that
effect on 16.06.2021.
7. After the order dated 16.06.2021 was passed, without challenging
the said order dated 16.06.2021, a writ petition came to be filed
challenging the earlier order dated 16.03.2021 on 07.08.2021, being Writ
Petition (C) No. 3493 of 2021.
8. Mr. Prateek Sharma further submitted that the respondent No. 1
subsequently filed the present writ petition, out of which this appeal
arises, suppressing the fact that this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3493 of
2021 had rejected the prayer for interim order to stay the order dated
16.03.2021. While filing the present writ petition, cleverly, what was
challenged is order dated 16.06.2021 though it is an admitted position
that both the orders, namely, 16.03.2021 and 16.06.2021 were in
existence when the earlier writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 3493 of
2021 was filed.
9. The order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition (C) No. 3493 of 2021, reads as follows:
"Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
against the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the RERA in
Case No.M-PRO-2020-01115, though the appeal has been
preferred but the appeal could not be heard for the reason
that the appellate authority still has not joined and in the
meanwhile the execution is being carried out, therefore, the
execution of the order dated 16.03.2021 in Case No.M-
PRO-2020-01115 be stayed.
The perusal of the order of the RERA would show that
relief is with respect to the providing electricity connection
to the respondent. The relevant part of the order dated
16.03.2021 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"& vukosnd] nks ekg ds Hkhrj vkosnd ds Hkw[k.M dzekad &,Q&03 ij fufeZr
edku esa LFkk;h fo|qr dusD'ku miyC/k djkus gsrq fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr dk;Zokgh
djuk lqfuf'pr djsA ;fn vukosnd }kjk mDr fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k esa vkosnd o
izkf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fookfnr izkstsDV ls lacaf/kr vU; vkacfVfr;ksa dks LFkk;h
fo|qr dusD'ku miyC/k ugha djk;k tkrk gS] rks vukosnd ds fo:) fu;ekuqlkj
dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA"
Therefore, the balance of convenience lies in favour of
rejection of this interim application as electricity connection
would be a necessity for human life. Therefore, I am not
inclined to stay the order dated 16.03.2021. Accordingly,
the I.A. No.1 for interim relief is dismissed.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process
fee as per rules.
List it after six weeks."
10. Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent
No.1/writ petitioner submits that they are ready and willing to make
payment of necessary charges to the respondent No. 4 to give electric
connection to the appellant.
11. Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4,
submits that respondent No. 1 has got outstanding dues and unless the
outstanding dues are cleared by the respondent No. 1, under relevant
rules, electric connection to the appellant cannot be given even if charge
for such electricity connection is paid.
12. We will not deal this aspect of matter in this appeal and express no
opinion on the same since this present appeal is preferred against grant
of an interim order.
13. When the prayer for grant of stay of the order dated 16.03.2021
was rejected in Writ Petition (C) No.3493 of 2021, about which there is no
mention in Writ Petition (C) No.4157 of 2021, and the manner in which
the writ petitions were filed, we are of the opinion that interim order needs
to be vacated and accordingly, the same is vacated. Resultantly, the writ
appeal is allowed.
14. Registry will list this case before the appropriate Single Bench
having roster on 26.09.2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
