Shri A.B.A. Ghani Khan Chowdhary vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 657 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner Shri A.B.A. Ghani Khan Chaudhary, a former Cabinet Minister and a Member of Parliament has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash impugned demand vide letter No. 186-EE(Comm)/LOPH dated 29th March, 2001 (Annexure P-1) in the sum of Rs. 22,39,226.00 being the amount of electricity and water charges outstanding in respect of premises at 12, Akbar Road in his occupation. Petitioner also seeks quashing of letter No. 124 dated 21st March, 2000 (Annexure P-2) by which the petitioner was notified that on his failure to make the payment in four Installments, as requested by the petitioner, NDMC was constrained to resort to an action of disconnection of electric/water supply without any further notice. A writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to restore the supply of water and electricity with a direction that petitioner be made to pay only for the cost of actual consumption.

2. The above writ petition had come up before the Court on 24th April, 2000. The petitioner on the said date did not press the interim application as the electricity supply to the connections had since been restored. Rule was issued by the Vacation Judge on 19th June, 2000. The respondents were restrained from recovering the amount of arrears, shown in Annexures P-1 and P-2. Respondents were also directed to furnish information for each calender month w.e.f. 1st January, 1986 showing the initial meter reading, consumption reading, amount due and amount paid.

3. Respondents during the course of the proceedings in writ petition filed response to the stay application CM 4776/2000 of the petitioner. An additional affidavit dated 27.9.2000 was also filed by the respondent NDMC, setting out the facts and giving particulars of meter reading, electric consumption etc. The respondents also claimed that all particulars of the bills as well as payments made had already been supplied to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent on 30th October, 2000, stated that she does not wish to file counter-affidavit and would rely on the reply filed to CM 4776/2000 and the additional affidavit filed. Respondent moved CM 6695/2000 seeking an early hearing. Counsel for respondents invited disposal of the writ petition by the Court and did not press the prayer made in CM 6995/2000 for transfer of the writ petition to the Division Bench, which was hearing a Public Interest Petition bearing CW 4912/98 involving the cases of non-payment of electricity and other charges by VIPs, politicians and those occupying public offices.

4. The writ petition since then was adjourned from time to time and interim directions were given to respondents to clarify the increase in the arrears in the months for the months of March to May, 1999. Vide order dated 29th November, 2001, the petitioner was given an opportunity to reconcile the accounts and for this purpose petitioner or his authorised representative was to visit the Liaison Officer of the NDMC. The petitioner was directed to continue to pay electricity and water charges regularly minus the arrears without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Vide orders 15th January, 2002, the petitioner prayed for further time to meet the Liaison Officer to reconcile the accounts. No progress had been made in the attempted reconciliation before the Liaison Officer. Petitioner contends that records were not produced, while the respondents claimed that all particulars of bills, invoices, amounts billed and paid have been furnished.

5. Counsel for petitioner on 16th August, 2002 sought time to obtain instructions from the petitioner with regard to reference of the disputes which were the subject matter of the writ petition to the permanent Lok Adalat of NDMC for reconciliation. Learned counsel for the respondents indicated that there was a proposal under consideration which could even permit waiver of substantial amount of surcharge i.e. up to 75%, subject to the party making payment of the entire over dues in one lump sum. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would like to seek instructions from petitioner in this regard also. On the next date i.e. 2nd September, 2002, counsel for the petitioner did not make any submission with regard to reference of the disputes to the permanent Lok Adalat of NDMC for reconciliation, rather he submitted that respondents had acted unfairly and even included amounts/electricity charges of Ashoka Road, which have never been occupied by the petitioner as also including the charges for electric consumption by security agencies which are payable by CPWD.

6. Counsel for petitioner claimed that billing was erroneous and despite the petitioner having disputed and questioned the basis of the consumption charges billed, respondents have been adding surcharge amount at varying percentage per month. Petitioner also claimed that credit had not been given to the petitioner for the payments made. Statements furnished were also incorrect.

7. It is in the aforesaid background of facts and proceedings ensuing, the filing of the writ petition, we need to consider the objection of the respondents-NDMC on the maintainability of the writ petition.

8. Before adverting to the stand of the NDMC, the case of the petitioner as made out in the synopsis and oral submissions, may be noticed.

9. Petitioner claims to have been regularly paying the bills as and when received from the respondents-NDMC. Respondents-NDMC, it is claimed, were not regular in raising the bills. The bills raised did not reflect the actual consumption. Not only this, the respondents extended threats of disconnection of supplies and went on adding surcharge @ 3%per month over the alleged arrear shown. This has resulted in inflated and illegal demands being made. Petitioner's complaints, representations had been ignored. Petitioner claims that some dues of 12, Ashoka Road, were added to the amounts of the petitioner and even the charges for security personnel were also added. The electric supply was disconnected and restored after Realizing part payment. Petitioner claims that the surcharge amount itself comes to the tune of Rs. 17,12,000/- which has further arisen to Rs. 23,11,640/-. Petitioner claims failure on the part of the respondents-NDMC to produce the record. Allegations of tampering and forgery of the documents and letters produced, were made. It is stated that credits for all the amounts paid has not been given. In some of the bills, it is claimed that no arrears were shown, which would indicate that the petitioner had cleared all outstandings. It is also claimed that the respondents Chairman had given directions to the staff to look into the instances of wrong adding of bills pointed out by the petitioner, but to no avail.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents, Ms. Hima Kohli submitted that this was a clear case of the petitioner not making payment of the electricity charges as billed based on actual consumption. The surcharge was being levied as per the tariff. Ms. Kohli claims that bills have been raised after adjustment of the free admissible units of electricity which were paid directly by the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat, as also charges for the security personnel which are paid by the CPWD. As the petitioner has failed to clear arrears inspite of reminders, the respondent disconnected electricity and water supply on 14.12.91 after due notice. The petitioner assured to make the payment vide his letter of 30th December, 1991 addressed to the Liaison Officer and requested for a grant of 24 Installments to make the payment commencing January, 1992. Petitioner also prayed for being notified amount of each Installment to be paid every month. The petitioner was asked to make Installment of Rs. 20,000/- each per month. After making the payments of three Installments, the petitioner defaulted and electricity again had to be disconnected on 24th November, 1992, petitioner thereafter again made a payment of Rs. 50,000/- and electricity was restored, on the promise to pay the balance amount by December, 1992.

11. It is the case of the respondents that there was persistent and repeated failure on the part of the petitioner to make payment of his legitimate dues. Learned counsel pointed out that there were 17 electricity meters and three water supply meters at the house 12, Akbar Road. Out of 17 electricity meters, 12 meters are for domestic lights and remaining five for domestic power. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench in CW 4912/98 titled `Krishak Bharat Vs. Union of India & Ors' where the NDMC was called upon to inform the Court about steps being taken to recover electricity and water dues payable by Members of Parliament, political parties VIPs etc. The scenario of the petitioner making ad hoc payments when confronted with disconnection and promising to pay the balance dues, but thereafter not making the payment, continued. Counsel submitted that the electric supply was disconnected on 10th April, 2000 and was restored at the request of the Secretary General, Lok Sabha upon payment of Rs. 2,52,000/-. The petitioner was again called upon vide notice dated 1st June, 2000 to make the payment of the balance due of Rs. 19,82,226/- with surcharge in nine Installments. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition.

12. From the perusal of the reply filed by the respondents to the application as well as the details of meter readings and other information accompanying the additional affidavit, it is seen that the respondents have substantially complied with the directions given. The petitioner disputes and does not accept the meter readings and the billings therefore.

13. These are highly contentious and disputed questions of fact which the petitioner wishes to raise in the writ petition. These disputed and contentious issues cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and require to be determined in civil forum. Nothing has been produced on record by the petitioner to show that the disconnection of electric supply was on account of extraneous factors or at the behest or the signal of political vested interests inimical to petitioner. Apart from the fact that there was nothing produced to substantiate the allegation, the mere factum of repeated restoration of electric supply on payments of even small ad hoc amounts, would belie the bogey of political vendetta.

14. The respondents objections with regard to non-maintainability of the writ petition was noted in the order dated 30th October, 2000. As noted in the earlier part of the judgment, directions were given and attempts were made to see if there could be a reconciliation of accounts and billing and payment claimed. Petitioner was required to meet the Liaison Officer of the respondents, however, the same has not brought forth any result. The petitioner continues to question the billings as being not as per consumption. On a prima facie view of the matter, I find that the respondents have substantially complied with the directions given with regard to furnishing of relevant details and particulars of readings and billings. The disputed questions of fact as are sought to be raised cannot be adjudicated upon in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to refer them for reconciliation to the permanent Lok Adalat of the NDMC. The respondents counsel had also indicated that there was a proposal in the offing which could permit relief up to 75% of arrears in surcharge being given in case the payment of the entire over due electricity consumption charges was made in one go. Counsel for the petitioner, however, did not get instructions on this aspect and instead argued the writ petition. In view of the foregoing discussions and the proceedings as noted, I hold that the writ petition raises disputed contentious questions and complex of facts which cannot be gone into in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has neither invoked his remedies under the Indian Electricity Act nor in the civil forum. This is not a case where justice of the situation requires interference in writ jurisdiction by embarking on determination and adjudication of disputed questions of fact. There is also no specific challenge to the levy of surcharge as per the tariff. The allegations of mala fides have been found to be without any basis or foundation. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

All interim orders stand vacated and CMs stand disposed.