Patna High Court
Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs The North Bihar Power ... on 21 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21168 of 2021
======================================================
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Son of Late Shiv Nath Prasad, presently residing at
Madhuwan, In-front of Pallavi apartment, Nala Road, P.S.- Kadam Kuwan,
District- Patna, permanent resident of At and P.O.- Daulatganj, Near
Annpurna Mandir, P.S.- Bhagwan Bazar, District - Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited through its
Managing Director, 3rd Floor Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.
2. The Managing Director, the North Bihar Power Distribution Company
Limited, 3rd Floor Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited,
Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.
4. The Superintending Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Dank
Bunglow Road, P.S. - Chapra Town, District - Saran.
5. The Executive Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Saran at Chapra.
6. The Assistant Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Chapra.
7. The Junior Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Kashi Bazar,
P.S. - Bhagwan Bazar, District - Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Adv
Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Adv
Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE )
Date : 21-02-2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction
directing the respondent authorities to restore the electric
connection of the petitioner as the electric connection of the
petitioner has been erroneously disconnected on 10.12.2021
contrary to the provisions of the Electric Act, 2003.
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction
Patna High Court CWJC No.21168 of 2021 dt.21-02-2022
directing the respondent authorities to rectify the electricity
bill of the petitioner as per law and also for quashing the bill
dated 21.11.2021 raising an erroneous amount of Rs.
74502/-.
(iii) For a direction to the respondent authorities
not to insist upon the demand till the veracity/correctness of
the meter is tested by a check meter in accordance with the
provisions as contained in the Bihar Electricity Supply Code,
2007.
(iv) For a declaration that in view of the specific
provision under section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003,
regarding limitation for raising any demand and
consequential disconnection the respondent authorities
cannot disconnect the electric supply till adjudication of the
dispute."
After the matter was heard for some time, finding the
Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner,
under instructions, states that petitioner shall be content if a
direction is issued to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Muzaffarpur, to consider and decide the representation which
the petitioner shall be filing within a period of two weeks from
today for redressal of the grievance(s).
Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a
representation is filed by the petitioner, the authority concerned
shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously and preferably
within a period of four weeks from the date of its filing along
with a copy of this order.
Statement accepted and taken on record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21168 of 2021 dt.21-02-2022
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs.
Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2
SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:-
"34. The learned counsel for the parties
addressed us on the question of the bona fides of
Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation. We
leave this question open and do not express any
opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the
decision of the High Court in this regard.
35. However, we note that generally
speaking, procedural technicalities ought to take a
back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held
in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of
U.P. [Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v.
State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] to this effect as
follows: (SCC p. 515, para 16)
"16. The writ petitions before us are
not inter parties disputes and have been
raised by way of public interest litigation
and the controversy before the court is as
to whether for social safety and for
creating a hazardless environment for the
people to live in, mining in the area
should be permitted or stopped. We may
not be taken to have said that for public
interest litigations, procedural laws do not
apply. At the same time it has to be
remembered that every technicality in the
procedural law is not available as a
defence when a matter of grave public
importance is for consideration before the
court."
36. A considerable amount has been said
about public interest litigation in R&M
Trust [R&M Trust v. Koramangala
Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3
SCC 91] and it is not necessary for us to
dwell any further on this except to say
that in issues pertaining to good
governance, the courts ought to be
somewhat more liberal in entertaining
public interest litigation. However, in
matters that may not be of moment or a
Patna High Court CWJC No.21168 of 2021 dt.21-02-2022
litigation essentially directed against one
organisation or individual (such as the
present litigation which was directed
only against Sadananda Gowda and later
Jeevaraj was impleaded) ought not to be
entertained or should be rarely
entertained. Other remedies are also
available to public spirited litigants and
they should be encouraged to avail of
such remedies.
37. In such cases, that might not strictly
fall in the category of public interest
litigation and for which other remedies
are available, insofar as the issuance of a
writ of mandamus is concerned, this
Court held in Union of India v. S.B.
Vohra [Union of India v. S.B. Vohra,
(2004) 2 SCC 150: 2004 SCC (L&S)
363] that: (SCC p. 160, paras 12-13)
"12. Mandamus literally
means a command. The essence
of mandamus in England was
that it was a royal command
issued by the King's Bench
(now Queen's Bench) directing
performance of a public legal
duty.
13. A writ of mandamus
is issued in favour of a person
who establishes a legal right in
himself. A writ of mandamus is
issued against a person who has
a legal duty to perform but has
failed and/or neglected to do so.
Such a legal duty emanates
from either in discharge of a
public duty or by operation of
law. The writ of mandamus is
of a most extensive remedial
nature. The object of
mandamus is to prevent
disorder from a failure of
justice and is required to be
granted in all cases where law
has established no specific
remedy and whether justice
Patna High Court CWJC No.21168 of 2021 dt.21-02-2022
despite demanded has not been
granted."
38. A salutary principle or a well-
recognised rule that needs to be kept in
mind before issuing a writ of
mandamus was stated in Saraswati
Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of
India [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate
Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC
630] in the following words: (SCC pp.
641-42, paras 24-25)
"24. ... The powers of
the High Court under Article
226 are not strictly confined to
the limits to which
proceedings for prerogative
writs are subject in English
practice. Nevertheless, the
well-recognised rule that no
writ or order in the nature of a
mandamus would issue when
there is no failure to perform a
mandatory duty applies in this
country as well. Even in cases
of alleged breaches of
mandatory duties, the salutary
general rule, which is subject
to certain exceptions, applied
by us, as it is in England,
when a writ of mandamus is
asked for, could be stated as
we find it set out in Halsbury's
Laws of England (3rd Edn.),
Vol. 11, p. 106:
'198. Demand for
performance must precede
application.--As a general
rule the order will not be
granted unless the party
complained of has known
what it was he was required to
do, so that he had the means of
considering whether or not he
should comply, and it must be
shown by evidence that there
was a distinct demand of that
Patna High Court CWJC No.21168 of 2021 dt.21-02-2022
which the party seeking the
mandamus desires to enforce,
and that that demand was met
by a refusal.'
25. In the cases before
us there was no such demand
or refusal. Thus, no ground
whatsoever is shown here for
the issue of any writ, order, or
direction under Article 226 of
the Constitution."
As such, petition stands disposed of on the following
terms:-
(a) Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned
within a period of two weeks from today by filing a
representation for redressal of the grievance(s);
(b) The authority concerned shall consider and dispose
it of expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order preferably
within a period of four weeks from the date of its filing along
with a copy of this order;
(c) The order assigning reasons shall be communicated
to the petitioner;
(d) Needless to add, while considering such
representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed
and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the parties;
(e) Also, opportunity to place on record all relevant
materials/documents shall be granted to the parties;
Patna High Court CWJC No.21168 of 2021 dt.21-02-2022
(f) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take
recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available
in accordance with law;
(g) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes
recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law,
before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in
accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;
(h) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the
appropriate forum/Court, should the need so arise subsequently
on the same and subsequent cause of action;
(i) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All
issues are left open;
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
(S. Kumar, J)
ranjan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date NA
