Madan Trading Co. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1995 Latest Caselaw 379 Del

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

(1) In 1992, petitioner through its Director, G.S. Madan filed this petition for quashing the levy of misuse charges in respect of electricity connection in H-9/B-1, Mohan Coop. Ind. Estate for quashing the notice dated 16th/17th June, 1992 and restraining the respondent from disconnection of supply for non-payment of misuse charges. Briefly, the case set up in the W.P. is :

(2) The petitioner commenced garment manufacturing operations from premises w.e.f. 18.2.92. The premises were originally allotted to Raghubir Singh who had appointed G.S. Madan as his lawful attorney. G S Madan on behalf of Raghubir Singh applied for and was granted completion certificate license and permanent power connection and the Desu, on completion of commercial formalities, directed the release of industrial load in the said premises. The load was energised by Desu on or about 1.1.90. In terms of Will of late Raghubir Singh the premises devolved upon father of G.S. Madan, namely, Puran Singh. Since Puran Singh had predeceased Raghubir Singh the property devolved in equal shares upon the four children of Puran Singh, G.S. Madan being one of them. Puran Singh was a relative of Raghubir Singh. There can be no misuse or subletting of electricity upon the heirs succeeding to the property that had been provided with electric connection and by utilising the electricity for the same purpose for which it was provided. It is claimed that there is no subletting of the electric connection since the directors of the petitioner company are the legal owners in respect of the electric connection having succeeded to the premises by way of inheritance. The case of inheritance cannot be termed as subletting of electricity.

(3) While issuing notice to show cause to respondent on 29th July 1992, a Db of this court made the following order :- "ADMITTEDLY the consumer of the electricity was Raghubir Singh who died. It is stated that under the Will certain person succeeded to his estate. On inspection made by Desu, it is found that the electricity was being used by petitioner, a private limited company in the nisi- property. Contention raised is that those very legal representative of Raghubir Singh are, in fact, directors of the company. Notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 7th August, 1992 dusty as well."

(4) On directions of the court that the petitioner shall apply to Desu for getting the connection transferred in the name of the petitioner and the Desu will consider that application expeditiously, it seems, the matter was considered by DESU. By letter dated 8.8.95 Desu informed the petitioner that the competent authority has approved the change in its favor pending recovery of outstanding dues in the name of Raghubir Singh, the outgoing consumer. On behalf of the petitioner, a submission was made before us that the transfer in the name of the petitioner shall be atleast from 1992, if not earlier, and not from 8.8.95. The effect of transfer in the name of petitioner from earlier date would be that it will be absolved of the liability to pay subletting charges from date of such transfer. At this stage when we were examining as to when connection was applied for and sanctioned to Raghubir Singh, it came to light on perusal of documents placed on record by Desu Along with its counter affidavit, that application for obtaining electric connection and the agreement executed thereafter between Raghubir Singh and Desu was signed by G.S. Madan in 1989. Admittedly, Raghubir Singh had died on 15.11.86. It is, thus, clear that G.S. Madan practiced a fraud on Desu by filing application, entering into agreement referred to above in 1989 for and on behalf of Raghubir Singh who died three years earlier. The petitioner even concealed material facts from this court in that it was not disclosed in the petition that the electric connection had been applied by G.S. Madan on behalf of Raghubir Singh after death of Raghubir Singh. We cannot believe that in 1989 G.S. Madan did not know about the demise of Raghubir Singh or that he came to know about it in 1990. Admittedly, Raghubir Singh was related to father of G.S. Madan. It is not possible to believe that G.S. Madan would not know about death of Raghubir Singh, who was his relation and had appointed him as his attorney. Further, assuming G.S. Madan came to know about the death of Raghubir Singh in the year 1990, he should have at least stated this for in the writ petition. It has not been pleaded in the writ petition that Raghubir Singh died in the year 1989 but G.S. Madan came to know about it in 1990 and in ignorance of death of Raghubir Singh, he had applied for electric connection in the name of Raghubir Singh and also entered into agreement on behalf of Raghubir Singh with Desu in November 1989. The plea about G.S. Madan coming to know about death of Raghubir Singh in 1990 was only taken in rejoinder to meet the contention of Desu in its counter affidavit about fraud having been practiced by Madan.

(5) Madan not only took Desu for a ride but treated this court alike. The order dated 29th July, 1992 also shows that the contention that the users were L.R.s of the deceased consumer led the court to issue the notice. When the aforesaid aspects were being examined, leave to withdraw the W.P. was sought. These facts having come to our notice, we declined the leave. We feel that if on facts, as in the present case, we permit W.P. to be withdrawn, the facts showing blatant fraud would be buried under the cover of an order, dismissing W.P. as withdrawn and that would not promote the cause of justice.

(6) The courts of law are meant for imparting justice. The petitioner has to come to court with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. The petitioner has to disclose all material facts while approaching the court. The grant of hearing to such a petitioner on other aspects raised in the petition would amount to allowing premium on fraud, misrepresentation and concealment. In this order we say nothing on the right of the petitioner, if any, to approach some other forum for raising the said aspects. We may also note that the petitioner during the course of hearing gave undertaking that in case of losing the W.P. they will pay all the arrears of misuse charges or otherwise at such rate of interest as may be directed by this court. Petition dismissed with cost of Rs 10.000.00.