V.K. Bhatnagar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1996 Latest Caselaw 253 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. SIddiqui, J.

(1) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

A)issue writ of mandamus and or any other writ order or direction directing the respondent not to interfere with the lawful commercial activities being carried out by the petitioner in the premises in dispute;

B)and to issue writ of mandamus and or any civil writ or appropriate direction directing the respondent No.l and 4 to issue the requisite licences for carrying on the trade and business of Hotel and Resorts, to the petitioner in the premises in dispute;

C)to issue an appropriate any other order direction directing the respondent No.3 not to charge any penalty/charges surcharge over and above the one they are entitled to under the law for utilising the premises in dispute for commercial purpose;

D)to issue appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent No.2 not to prosecute the petitioner for utilising the premises in dispute for commercial purposes;

(2) In this petition, the petitioner's main grievance was against the respondent No.l(M.C.D.) for not granting him the licence to run the hotel in the premises in question. On 19.9.1995, the petition against the Mcd was dismissed as withdrawn. The petition is now confined to clause (c) of the prayer clause. In his counter, the respondent No.2 denied that the surcharge in question has been levied illegally. According to respondent No.2 the demand for supply of electric energy has been raised in accordance with law.

(3) At the outset, I must make it clear that there is nothing in the petition to show as to how the demand raised by respondent No.2 in respect of supply of electricity to the petitioner's hotel is unreasonable or improper. It has to be borne in mind that a hotel or resort would not fall in the category of private residential premises but it would fall in the category of commercial premises. Sections 19A to 27 of the Indian Electricity Act deal with the supply of electricity by the licensee. The said provisions, inter alia, contained the right, duties and obligations of the licensee. While Section 21(2) enables the licensee, subject to the conditions prescribed therein, to lay down conditions regulating his relations with intending consumers. Section 22 casts an obligation on the licensee to supply energy, The substantive part of Section 22 makes it obligatory on the licensee to supply energy to every person in the area on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same is entitled to receive, The proviso, however, makes it clear that that the licensee will have an option act to supply energy in cases covered by the said proviso. The demand and supply of energy under the proviso to Section 22 ig, therefore, contractual in nature. Section 23(3) of the Indian Electricity Act contemplates agreement being entered into between the parties pertaining to charges for energy supplied to the consumer. The consumer would be bound to pay for energy by virtue of the agreement entered into by it with the licensee. It is pertinent to note that the agreement entered into between the parties in this regard is not on the record. Under Section 283 of the Delhi Municipal Council Act, the Mcd has power to fix the rate for payment of electric energy. Section 283 ibid does not in any way prevent or inhibit the D.M.C. from prescribing different tariffs for different types of consumers. According to the petitioner, he has been using the premises in question for commercial purposes since 1973. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot ask the respondent No.2 or the respondent NO.1 to charge at the rate applicable to a domestic consumer for supply of electric energy to his hotel. On the contrary, the Corporation by virtue of the agreement read with Section 283 of the Act is entitled to fix different rates from time to time, and the consumer is bound to pay the rate so fixed. In this view of the matter, it cannot be held that the demand in question is unreasonable or improper.

(4) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.5,000.00 .