Devi Saran Laxmi Saruf vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1994 Latest Caselaw 121 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun B. Saharya, J.

(1) The petitioner is a registered consumer of energy for industrial purposes at A-100 / 3, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Ii, New Delhi. In the very same premises, the petitioner has allowed three different companies, namely, M/s. Muko Plast Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Yogi Trading Company (P) Ltd., and M/s. Welcome India, to carry on their own and independent industrial business with the aid of electric energy which is supplied in his name. The respondent is claiming misuse charges from the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has sublet the facility to the said three different industrial units without permission. The respondent has raised bills for recovery of misuse charges on the basis of Subclause (v) of Clause (xxiv) of Tariff Rules, which is sought to be stayed.

(2) We may note here that in some similar matters, being Cwp Nos. 22/92 and 52/92, where Rule Nisi has been issued, recovery of misuse charges has been stayed. Those are non-speaking orders. We are deviating from that course and taking a different course for the following reasons.

(3) In the main writ petition, the petitioner has challenged vires of tariff rule (xxiv) (v), inter alia, on the ground that it is violative of Clause 4 (2) of the Delhi , Electric Control Order, which envisages subletting only in cases where the con- sumer lets some-one else use the energy in some other premises; and that there is no rational classification in the tariff rules for applying different standards in a case where energy is sublet for domestic purposes as against the case where energy is sublet for industrial or commercial purposes.

(4) The Tariff Rules provide as follows: "xxiv. Misuse is termed as: (I)Use of a load for purpose other than the purpose for which it was sanctioned. (ii) Use of industrial load without license or if the license granted has not been renewed by the Licensing Department written the grace period; (iii) Sub-letting of electricity to the neighbour by any registered consumer in whose favor the load has been sanctioned; (iv) Feeding from any live connection to any connection lying disconnected due to any reason in a building where is more than one connection. (v) Sub-letting electricity to any person/concern by any registered con- sumer in whose favor the industrial load has been sanctioned."

(5) Challenge to the tariff rules has to be finally decided after a detailed hearing of the writ petition. Unless and until the said provision in the tariff rules is truck down, the petitioner is liable to pay the misuse charges.

(6) Prima fade, challenge to vires of the tariff rules appears to be doubtful. The tariff rules are framed under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 whereas Delhi Electricity Control Order has been issued under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The former is not, in any way, subject to the latter. The two provisions, however, have to be harmoniously construed. In the peculiar facts of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner has let three other independent industrial units use the energy supplied to it, without any permission, and such an act would be termed, even in ordinary English parlance, as subletting. User of energy for industrial or commercial purposes is clearly distinguishable from the use thereof for domestic purposes. The sanctioned load and the connected load of the registered consumer in the former category would obviously change in the case of subletting to one or more other industrial units, whereas it may not necessarily be so in a case of subletting for domestic purposes. Classification on this basis for purposes of determination of usual or misuse charges for the consumption of electricity would have a

reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by different provisions made for different categories of consumers of electricity under the tariff rules. These observations, however, shall not have any bearing upon final decision of the writ petition.

(7) In any event, balance of convenience does not appear to be in favor of the stay of recovery of the misuse charges. If the petitioner finally succeeds, he will be entitled to refund and /or adjustment of any excess payment that he may make in the meanwhile, and he would not suffer any irreparable loss. On the other hand, if he fails in the writ petition, recovery of public dues would be unnecessarily delayed, and operation of the stay order would result in serious prejudice to public interest.

(8) In these circumstances, all the interim orders made in respect of the electricity bills in this case are hereby vacated. The applications are dismissed.