Shakuntala Sharma W/O Shri Ravikant ... vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3589 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Shakuntala Sharma W/O Shri Ravikant ... vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. ... on 7 May, 2024

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Shubha Mehta

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 171/2024

Smt. Sushila Devi Wife Of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About
62 Years, R/o Plot No. 35, Shribalaji Vihar, Heerapath Road,
Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti
         Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.
2.       The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
         Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3.       Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan,
         Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
                                                                    ----Respondents

Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 118/2024 Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur- 302005 Through Its Authorised Signatory Shri Harish Bijarnia Xen Cd-Vi Jvvnl Sanganer

----Appellant Versus

1. Anant Kasliwal S/o Shri Ram Chandra Kasliwal, R/o Sb-

14, Bhawani Singh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 301015

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 173/2024 Shakuntala Sharma W/o Shri Ravikant Sharma D/o Shri Lala Ram Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Shribalaji Vihar, Heerapath Road, Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur .

----Appellant Versus

1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-171/2024]

Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 190/2024 Lalaram Sharma Son Of Late Shri Kishan Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Plot No. 69, Shri Balaji Vihar, Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

3. Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Adv.with Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Pashupati Nath Bhandari, Adv.with Ms. Gaurika Bhansali, Adv.

For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Kartikeya Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Arafat Hussain, Adv.

Mr. Yuvraj Samant, Adv. through VC with Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Bipin Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Naman Pareek, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Judgment

07/05/2024 Reportable

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-171/2024]

1. Appellants- Sushila Devi, JVVNL and Shakuntala

Sharma have preferred these appeals aggrieved by Order dated

03.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby misc.

application alongwith the connected Writ Petitions for release of

electricity connection to premises situated in Prithvi Raj Nagar

Scheme of the Jaipur Development Authority was rejected on the

ground that the same would be against the tenet of planned

development of Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme, as directed by Co-

ordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court.

2. The present appellants have preferred writ petition

seeking release of electricity connection but the same was

rejected by the impugned order dated 03.11.2023.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that

learned Single Judge in Sugan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

and connected cases: 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2070 had disposed

of the writ petition vide order dated 15.07.2013. In the relief

clause of the writ petition, it was mentioned that till the allotment

is made in favour of the petitioner or others, respondent is

directed not to release the electricity connection. This is to avoid

possibility of further construction without allotment of plot. In case

of any difficulty in carrying out the directions aforesaid or

otherwise, affected parties would be at liberty to make appropriate

application before this court for clarification/ modification. It is

also contended that the appellants moved an application for

clarification/ modification of the order.

4. It is contended by Mr. P.N. Bhandari, Adv. that the order

passed by learned Single Judge was contrary to Section 43 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 (herein referred as 'the Act') and no orders

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-171/2024]

could have been passed restraining the JVVNL from releasing

electricity connections. It is contended that this fact was brought

to the notice of learned Single Judge by moving an application for

modification/ clarification, but the same has been dismissed

without considering the statutory provisions contained in Section

43 of the Act.

5. It is contended by Mr. Prahlad Sharma appearing for

the appellants that the duty envisaged under Section 43 of the Act

is mandatory in nature and hence, connection cannot be withheld

and the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ

petition. In this regard, he has placed reliance on Chandu

Khamaru Vs. Smt. Nayan Malik & Ors. 2012(1) WLC (SC) Civil 84.

6. It is contended by Mr. Bipin Gupta- learned counsel for

JVVNL that any person who is in occupation of any premises is

entitled to get the electricity connection under Section 43 of the

Act. In this regard reliance has been placed on Dilip (Dead)

through L.Rs. vs. Satish and Ors.: 2022/INSC/570; Laxmi Ram

Pawar Vs. Sitabai Balu Dhotre and Ors.: AIR 2011 SC 450; K.C.

Niman Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.: 2023 (8)

SCALE 564, Abhimanyu Mazumdar Vs. Superintending Engineer:

AIR 2011 Calcutta 64; Amarendra Singh Vs. Calcutta Electric

Supply Corporation Ltd. & Ors.: AIR 2008 Calcutta 66; Tarun

Dey Vs. Andaman & Nicobar Administration: 2018 SCC OnLine

Cal 5582; Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Jayanthi

Sundhar & Ors.: AIR 2015 Madras 197; Sudharshan Kumar

Sharma & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.: 2022 SCC OnLine

Del 3720; Om Prakash Vs. Balkar Singh: 2022 SCC OnLIne

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-171/2024]

P&H 3733; Kanubhai Jethabahi Rohit & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

& Ors.: AIR 2018 Gujarat 21.

7. It is contended by Mr. P.N. Bhandari that in one of the

writ petition which was filed before the learned Single Judge,

directions were given to convene meeting and the meeting was

convened by the Chief Secretary, in which JDA Secretary,

Managing Director of JVVNL, Principal Secretary of UDH and

Principal Secretary Energy & Discom were present, wherein it was

observed that because of restrictions in giving electricity

connections, theft of electricity is taking place. It was also

observed that not giving electricity connection is not in accordance

with law and withholding connection is dehors the Act.

8. Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State

contends that the stand of the State before the learned Single

Judge was that denying the supply of electricity to residents of

PRN Scheme who do not possess lease deed/patta, would not be

in consonance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2013.

9. Learned counsel appearing for JDA contends that the

present case has a chequered history to stop illegal construction in

PRN Scheme. It is contended that learned Single Judge has passed

the order restraining the JVVNL from issuing connections. He,

however, not in a position to explain as to why withholding the

connection to stop illegal construction is necessary when JDA is

having sufficient resources to stop illegal constructions.

10. We have considered the contentions.

11. Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under"-

"43. Duty to supply on request.- (1) [Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution] licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-171/2024]

such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:

Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub- stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.

[Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "application" means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.] (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-

section (1):

Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.

(3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default."

12. It is the mandate of Section 43 of the Act that on an

application by the owner or occupier of any premises, the Board is

required to give supply of electricity to such premises within one

month after receipt of the application requesting such supply.

Admittedly, the appellants in these case have applied to the JVVNL

and stand of the JVVNL is also that there is theft of electricity as

there is restraining order passed by learned Single Judge, whereby

JVVNL has been restrained from giving electricity connection which

is resulting in huge losses to JVVNL. It is also contended that

JVVNL is duty bound by the statue to provide electricity connection

to the owner or occupier of the premises.

[2024:RJ-JP:21613-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-171/2024]

13. We are of the considered view that restraining JVVNL

from issuance of connection would be against the statutory

provisions contained in Section 43 of the Act. Learned Single

Judge has clearly erred in rejecting the application filed by the

JVVNL for modification of the order. Learned Single Judge has also

erred in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants,

wherein they have claimed relief of grant of electricity connection.

14. Consequently, Special Appeal Writ No. 118/2024 filed

by the JVVNL deserve to be and is accordingly, allowed. The

restriction imposed by the Court with regard to grant of electricity

connection is dehors Section 43 of the Act, hence quashed. JVVNL

is free to issue electric connection in accordance with Law.

15. Special Appeal Writ No. 171/2024, 173/2024 and

190/2024 filed by the appellants are also allowed. They are

entitled to get electricity connection in view of Section 43 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 in accordance with law.

16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

17. A copy of this order be placed in connected files.

                                   (SHUBHA MEHTA),J                                              (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

                                   CHANDAN /141-144









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)