Delhi High Court
Rajinder Singh vs Anand & Anr on 15 December, 2015
Author: Manmohan
#8
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 942/2015 & CM APPL. 29913/2015
RAJINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
versus
ANAND & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Manish Srivastava, Advocates
% Date of Decision : 15th December, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present content petition has been filled alleging wilful disobedience of
order dated 29th May, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5745/2015 by which the
petitioner was directed to deposit 1/3rd amount of Rs. 8.2 lacs with the
respondent-TPDDL and the respondent-TPDDL was directed to reconnect
the electricity connection at property no. A-14,G.T.Karnal Road, Industrial
Area within three days.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that though 1/3rd of Rs. 8.2 lacs
was deposited and the petitioner is continuously depositing current
electricity charges, yet his connection was disconnected on 18th September,
2015.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents points out that
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum [for short "CGRF"] vide order dated
30th May, 2014 has held that Rs. 8,21,187/- was payable on account of
outstanding dues. He contends that the CGRF held that the issue of misuse
charges pertaining to Rs. 20,23,032/- could not be adjudicated by it for want
of jurisdiction. He, however, points out petitioner was given liberty to
approach the Additional District Magistrate by way of an appeal under
Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. Learned counsel for respondents also points out that by way of an
appeal before Ombudsman, present petitioner had challenged the CGRF's
order dated 30th May, 2014 only to the extent it directed the petitioner to pay
Rs. 8,21,187/- as outstanding dues.
5. Learned counsel for respondents states that this Court by the order
dated 29th May, 2015 only upheld the interim direction given by the
Ombudsman vide order dated 27th March, 2015.
6. Learned counsel for respondents lastly states that disconnection of
electricity was on account of non-payment of misuse charges of
Rs. 20,23,032/- which has neither been challenged in the appeal before the
Ombudsman nor was the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 5745/2015.
7. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is in agreement
with the submission of learned counsel for respondents that finding of
CGRF in its order dated 30th May, 2014 regarding misuse charges
has neither been challenged before Ombudsman nor before any other
forum till date. Consequently, on account of non-payment of misuse
charges, which is entirely an independent ground not dealt with in the order
dated 29th May, 2014, it cannot be said that respondents have acted in wilful
disobedience of any judgment or order passed by this Court.
8. In the present case, keeping in view the various orders passed, in
particular CGRF's order dated 30th May, 2014, this Court is of the view that
no case of contempt is made out.
9. In any event, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of
Bihar Vs. Sonabati Kumari, AAIR 1961 SC 221 has held that provisions of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deal with the wilful defiance of the order
passed by the Court and order of punishment be not passed if the court is
satisfied that the party was, in fact, under a misapprehension as to the scope
of the order or there was an unintentional wrong for the reason that the
order was ambiguous and reasonably capable of more than one
interpretation or the party never intended to disobey the order but
conducted himself in accordance with the interpretation of the order.
10. Consequently, present contempt petition and application are
dismissed. However, petitioner is given liberty to challenge the misuse
charges in accordance with law. Rights and contentions of all parties are left
open.
MANMOHAN, J
DECEMBER 15, 2015
rn
