Harish Chandra Dhoulakhandi vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Harish Chandra Dhoulakhandi vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & ... on 10 January, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Writ Petition (M/S) No.3654 of 2023


Harish Chandra Dhoulakhandi                     ........Petitioner

                             Versus

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & others ....Respondents


Presence:-
      Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
      Nischal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. D. Barthwal, learned counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 &
      3.
      Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal,
      learned Standing Counsel(s) along with Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal,
      learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.4 to 6.


Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Garhwal as well as the order dated 28.04.2023, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Uttarakhand whereby the Ombudsman dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner and up-held the judgment and order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner owns a property/Shop No.210, Swaraj Complex, 2nd Floor, 72 Rajpur Road, Dehraudn which was purchased by him through sale deed dated 19.02.1997 from K.C. Builder through its owner Shri Kishor Dutt. In the said premises, the Electricity Connection No.N47159 was taken from the respondent-Electricity Department. There appears to be certain dispute with regard to the payment of the electricity charges of the premises. According to the respondent-Department, electricity charges of the

aforesaid building have never been given by the petitioner from the date of his purchase since 1997. On inquiry, it was found that the electricity charges were accumulated against the petitioner w.e.f. 1998 to 2000 and the electricity connection was disconnected by the respondent-Department for non-payment of the electricity charges. Subsequently, a New Connection No.706144610482 for 2 Kw load was given in the name of Shri S.P. Solanki on 10.08.2022 on the same premises. The payment against the bill of the said connection was continued to be made till 16.12.2017, but due to non- payment of the bill, the aforesaid second connection was got disconnected on 20.11.2018 on the ground of non- payment of the dues amounting to Rs.10,451/-.

3. It appears from the record that the petitioner subsequently applied for a new connection on the premises, but the said connection was denied to the petitioner on the ground that there were substantial amount outstanding against him. Petitioner took the matter to Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum challenging the decision of the respondent/department of denying new electricity connection. The said application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Forum vide impugned order dated 30.01.2023.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Forum, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Uttarakhand. The arguments submitted by the petitioner before the Ombudsman did not find favour and accordingly, Ombudsman had also dismissed the appeal by reason of judgment and order dated 28.04.2023 and the judgment and order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum was up-held.

The learned Ombudsman while dismissing the complaint has been pleased to direct that no new connection in the same premises can be released unless outstanding dues against both the aforesaid connections are realized after P.D. of these connections and finalizing the accounts of these two connections. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner is before this Court.

5. The case of the Electricity Department is that the outstanding dues of the earlier connection as well as the subsequent connection are pending, therefore, a new connection is being denied to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not know the person, who is a second consumer of the same premises i.e. Shri S.P. Solanki, on whose behest the connection was installed in the premises owned by the petitioner. He further submits that if certain dues were outstanding against the petitioner on the account of non-payment of electricity charges, pursuant to the earlier connection, which was got subsequently disconnected by the respondent- department, then as to how a new connection was given in the said premises and the meter was installed in the name of Shri S.P. Solanki. But the worse side, it could be possible that this S.P. Solanki may have paid the outstanding dues against the petitioner and only in that eventuality, a new connection would be installed, but this is not case of the respondent-electricity department.

7. To the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent- Electricity Department could not give any satisfactory answer to this Court as to how despite outstanding dues

against the petitioner on account of previous connection, the new connection was released in favour of the S.P. Solanki in the same premises.

8. From the entire scenario, it appears that the employees of the department were definitely hand in gloves with the petitioner as well as the subsequent tenants and it is only for that reason, the connections were given to the petitioner despite outstanding dues.

9. The Electricity Ombudsman, Uttarakhand has also expressed a similar view with regard to this issue and has directed in its judgment dated 28.04.2023 in para 7 as hereunder:-

"The matter of release of a connection in a premises where dues were outstanding against another connection earlier existed in the same premises is in violation of aforesaid sub regulation and not finalization of PD and no action for liquidation of dues as mentioned above under point (d) and (e), needs to be investigated. It is directed that Superintending Engineer, Incharge of Electricity Urban Distribution Circle, Dehradun be deputed to investigate into the above aforesaid two matters and to submit report to the Competent Authority of UPCL for taking necessary action against the staff/official responsible for aforesaid violations and irregularities with a report to the undersigned within two months from the date of this order."

10. Once, the Ombudsman comes to this conclusion, the matter requires investigation, the proper course would have been available to the Ombudsman at first to let conclude inquiry, which he directed to the Superintending Engineer, In-charge of Electricity Urban Distribution Circle, Dehradun and passed the final order to make, but without waiting for the inquiry to be conducted by Superintending Engineer, the final order has been passed.

11. The judgment and order impugned in the writ petition suffers from infirmity and the same deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Garhwal as well as the order dated 28.04.2023, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Uttarakhand are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

12. The Superintending Engineer, In-charge of Electricity Urban Distribution Circle, Dehradun is directed to conduct an inquiry regarding the conduct of the petitioner as well as the employees of the Electricity Department within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is only thereafter, the electricity connection can be given to the petitioner if he deserves it as per Rules.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.01.2024 AK