# (2013) 2 ILRA 1061

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 1061
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-07-05
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2013-2-ilra-1061-42546
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Power
connection-7.50 H.P. +120 wats to run
pump-set-on private bore well-as per
circular
dt.
31.08.2010-petitioner
deposited Rs. 14,175(11,175/cost of
line+2250 toward cost of 15 meter line)
on 21.02.2011 but no connection givencorporation taking plea entire erection of
line
expense
should
bear
by
the
consumer
itself-held-illegal-direction
issued to construct entire line within 3
month-order impugned quashed.

Held: Para-11
Since as per circular of the respondentcorporation dated 31.8.2010, nothing is to
be charged from the tube-well consumer
for laying the electric line up to 300 meters
and also since for rest of 15 meters, the
respondent-corporation has charged a sum
of Rs. 2,250/- towards cost of line as
evident from line chart and the report and
they have also made provision of carriage
and erection of 315 meters line as per
estimates
of
transmission
and
transformation which has been made
chargeable to the corporation as per
approved report dated 31.1.2011 and as
such the stand of the respondents that the
petitioner should construct the whole
electric line of 315 meters from the
materials provided by the corporation, does
not appears to be correct and justified. The
maximum which the respondents could
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

have required the petitioner to pay could be
that the petitioner should bear the cost of
construction of line beyond 300 meters.
However, in this regard, we find that as per
line chart and approved report containing
sanction of the estimate, a sum of
Rs.11,775/- has been made chargeable to
the consumer ( petitioner) which includes
Rs.2,250/- towards cost of 15 meters line @
150 per meter which is mentioned as cost
of line in the order 19.2.2011. A sum of Rs.
11,775/- alongwith security of Rs.2,400/-
total Rs.14,175/- has been deposited by the
petitioner
on
21.2.2011
which
is
undisputed. Under the circumstances it
appears to be not justifiable for the
respondent-corporation
to
require
the
petitioner to construct the line from the
materials provided by the corporation.

## Text

2 All] Aftab Ahmad Vs.UPPCL and Ors.

1061

"(c) "occupier" in relation to an
industrial
establishment,
means
the
employer of workmen employed in such
establishment and includes in the case
where the employer is a company the
Managing Director and where it is a firm
the partner designated in that behalf by
the firm and in case of any other employer
an officer designated in that behalf by the
employer with his consent and whose
name is intimated by the employer to the
Labour Commissioner in the prescribed
form by the prescribed date;"

8. In the instant case the admitted
fact is that the petitioner is the owner of a
bungalow and he employed an engineer
for the purpose of redesigning and
redecorating his house. Daily rated
workers
were employed
as
mason,
electrician and painters, who worked in
the house. The petitioner's bungalow is
not an industrial establishment, and the
facts, which has been brought on the
record
clearly
indicate
that
no
manufacturing activities of any sort was
carried
out
nor
any
articles
were
produced, processed or manufactured,
which was put up for sale, use or for
transportation. The Court further finds
that the petitioner cannot be termed as an
occupier. He is the owner of a residential
house and is not an occupier as defined
under Section 2-C of the Act. The Act is
clearly not applicable.

9. In the light of the aforesaid, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and
is quashed.

10. The writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19355 OF 2013

Aftab Ahmad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
UPPCL and Ors.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mahboob Ahmad

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Power
connection-7.50 H.P. +120 wats to run
pump-set-on private bore well-as per
circular
dt.
31.08.2010-petitioner
deposited Rs. 14,175(11,175/cost of
line+2250 toward cost of 15 meter line)
on 21.02.2011 but no connection givencorporation taking plea entire erection of
line
expense
should
bear
by
the
consumer
itself-held-illegal-direction
issued to construct entire line within 3
month-order impugned quashed.

Held: Para-11
Since as per circular of the respondentcorporation dated 31.8.2010, nothing is to
be charged from the tube-well consumer
for laying the electric line up to 300 meters
and also since for rest of 15 meters, the
respondent-corporation has charged a sum
of Rs. 2,250/- towards cost of line as
evident from line chart and the report and
they have also made provision of carriage
and erection of 315 meters line as per
estimates
of
transmission
and
transformation which has been made
chargeable to the corporation as per
approved report dated 31.1.2011 and as
such the stand of the respondents that the
petitioner should construct the whole
electric line of 315 meters from the
materials provided by the corporation, does
not appears to be correct and justified. The
maximum which the respondents could
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

have required the petitioner to pay could be
that the petitioner should bear the cost of
construction of line beyond 300 meters.
However, in this regard, we find that as per
line chart and approved report containing
sanction of the estimate, a sum of
Rs.11,775/- has been made chargeable to
the consumer ( petitioner) which includes
Rs.2,250/- towards cost of 15 meters line @
150 per meter which is mentioned as cost
of line in the order 19.2.2011. A sum of Rs.
11,775/- alongwith security of Rs.2,400/-
total Rs.14,175/- has been deposited by the
petitioner
on
21.2.2011
which
is
undisputed. Under the circumstances it
appears to be not justifiable for the
respondent-corporation
to
require
the
petitioner to construct the line from the
materials provided by the corporation.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J )

1. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner has prayed for following reliefs
:

"a. issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 18.10.2012 passed
by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure No.9)
to the writ petition.

b. issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondent
Corporation to provide the electricity
connection to the petitioner to run the private
Pump set of 7.5 H.P. + 120 Wat within a
specific period, so that justice may be done.

c. issue any suitable order or
direction which this Hon'ble court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case, so that justice
may be done.

d. award the cost of the writ
petition."

Facts of the Case

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise
to the present petition are that the
petitioner is an agriculturist having 8
Bigha agricultural land in the village
Jafarpur
Malawan,
Pargana
Karkari,
Tehsil Manjhanpur, district Kaushambi.
With a view to improve his agricultural
land, the petitioner got constructed a bore
well and to install a private pumping set
of 7.5 H.P. he applied to Purvanchal
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kaushambi for
electricity connection under General /
Normal Scheme annexing therewith a
boring certificate issued by Assistant
Engineer ( Minor Irrigation), Kaushambi
dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure No.2). It
appears that pursuant to the application of
the petitioner for electric connection, a
report dated 31.1.2011 was submitted by
the respondent authorities alongwith a
line chart (Annexure No. SCA-1) and
estimate of cost of 11 KV line in two
parts,
namely,
transmission
and
transformation (Annexure No. SCA-2).
Thereafter the Executive Engineer granted
the approval and issued an order dated
19.2.2011 (Annexure No. SCA-3) for
electric connection which was followed
by the Line Order/ Work Order dated
20.6.2011 ( Annexure No. SCA-4).

3. Despite deposit of a sum of
Rs.14,175/- by the petitioner on 21.2.2011
pursuant to the order of the respondent no.
2 dated 19.2.2011 and issuance of Line
Order/ Work Order dated 20.6.2011
(Annexure No. SCA-4), the electric
connection was not given to the petitioner
and as such the petitioner filed a Writ
Petition No. 9993 of 2012 which was
disposed of vide order dated 24.2.2012
(Annexure
No.
6)
observing
that
representation of the petitioner be decided
2 All] Aftab Ahmad Vs.UPPCL and Ors.

1063
within six weeks from the date a certified
copy of the order is produced before the
respondent no. 2. It appears that the
petitioner has filed a certified copy of the
aforesaid order of this court dated
24.2.2012 vide letter dated 2.3.2012 (
Annexure No.7) before the respondent
no.2. The petitioner also moved a
Contempt Application ( Civil) No.1860 of
2012 which was rejected by this Court on
27.2.2013 by the following order : -

"This contempt petition has been
filed with the allegation that despite an
order dated 24.2.2012 passed in Writ
Petition No. 9993 of 2012, the opposite
parties have not taken a decision.

The issue between the parties was with
regard to grant of electricity connection and
the writ Court directed the opposite parties
to consider his representation. In pursuance
thereof, the order has been passed on
18.10.2012 stating that the applicant has not
performed his part of the obligation under
the scheme and, therefore, the line cannot
be
energized
and
accordingly
his
representation has been decided.

Learned counsel for the applicant
contends that erection of the transmission
line is obligation of the opposite party but
this fact is contested on the ground that
under the scheme in which the applicant
has applied the liability is of the
consumer. This is a question of fact which
needs adjudication and this exercise
cannot
be
undertaken
in
contempt
jurisdiction
and
the
applicant
can
approach before appropriate forum.

However, since there is substantial
compliance of the writ order, notices are
discharged. Contempt petition is rejected
and consigned to record. "

4. Now the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition challenging the order
dated 18.10.2012 ( Annexure No.9 )
which has been passed by the respondent
no.2 observing that it was the obligation
of the petitioner under the orders dated
19.2.2011 and 20.6.2011 to construct the
line from the materials already provided
by the respondent to him which has not
been done so far and as such the
construction of line be completed and be
intimated
to
the
S.D.O.
(IInd),
Manjhanpur so that enerization may be
done.

5. We have heard Sri Sanjay
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for the
petitioner, Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent no.3.

Submissions of the petitioner

6. Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the report prepared by the concerned
authorities and approved by the Executive
Engineer alongwith the line chart, the
total length of line is 315 meters and
estimate for laying the line has been
sanctioned for Rs.1,44,377/- under the
Normal Scheme. Out of this amount
Rs.1,32,602/-
is
chargeable
to
the
respondent-corporation and Rs.11,775/- is
chargeable to the petitioner. As per line
chart, a sum of Rs.11,775/- consists the
cost of line of 15 meters at Rs.2,250/-,
fixed charges Rs.2,000/-, system loading
charges
Rs.1,800/-,
Electric
meter
Rs.5,725/-. He further submits that the
breakup of charges to corporation of Rs.
1,32,602/- is given in the line chart as cost
of 11 KV line in two heads, namely,
transmission
Rs.56,863/-
and
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

transformation
of
Rs.75,739/-.
The
attention of the Court was drawn to the
details of items under the heads of
transmission and transformation as given
in Annexure No. SCA-2 which consist of
the cost of various items, concreting of
pole, carriage and erection charges etc. He
submits that as per circular of the
corporation dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure
No. SCA-1A), no line charges can be
charged from the consumer for line up to
300 meters from HT/LT main. He further
submits
that
as
per
report
dated
31.1.2011, line chart and the details of
transmission and transformation cost
estimate, the provision for concreting of
pole etc. and carriage, erection / over head
charges have already been made in the
estimate and thereafter the charges to the
consumer
has
been
determined
at
Rs.11,775/-
and
the
petitioner
has
deposited a sum of Rs.14,175/- (charge to
consumer Rs.11,775/- + Rs. 2,400/-
security charge). He further submits that
the construction of line can be done only
by the respondent - corporation and as
such they are bound to construct the line
and to give connection to the petitioner to
run his private tube well.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
Respondents

7. Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
submits that as per order dated 19.2.2011
followed by the Line Order/ Work Order
dated 20.6.2011, it is the obligation of the
petitioner ( consumer ) to construct the
line from the materials provided by the
corporation. He draws the attention of the
Court to the averments made in paragraph
nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the counter
affidavit to contend that a sum of Rs.
14,175/- deposited by the petitioner does
not include expenses on carriage of
material from store and erection of line
and over head charges, however it
includes the cost of line in excess of 300
meters. The paragraph nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
and 11 of the short counter affidavit are
reproduced below : -

"5. That the petitioner applied for
electricity connection to run the tube-well
of 7.5 H.P. His application was processed
and report alongwith line chart was
prepared by the Junior Engineer showing
distance of 315 meters from the premises
of the applicant to 11 KV H.T. Line with
an estimate of Rs.1,44,377/-. The report
of Junior Engineer dated 31.1.2011 is
annexed with this affidavit and is marked
as Annexure No. SCA-1.

6. That in pursuance to report dated
31.1.2011 the petitioner had to deposit
Rs.1,44,377/- for electricity connection
and in such an event the entire work had
to be carried out by the department. Since
the petitioner was not able to take the
electricity connection by depositing the
estimated
cost
and
he
shown
his
willingness to obtain the benefit of normal
scheme under which the petitioner was
entitled for heavy subsidies provided by
the State Government. According to this
scheme all necessary materials including
the transformer of 25 KVA, PCC pole
with stone pad, etc. are provided to
consumers from the department with the
condition to construct the electricity line
through his own labour as per line chart
prepared by the Junior Engineer under the
supervision of the departmental staff and
finally the consumer will provide a cable
to the department and that cable shall be
attached from L.T. Side of the transformer
to the input supply point of the motor
through which the consumer will run
2 All] Aftab Ahmad Vs.UPPCL and Ors.

1065
tube-well, the work of energizing the
electricity line shall be performed by the
departmental staff but earlier to this, the
consumer will construct the complete line
from the materials provided to him under
this scheme under the supervision of
departmental staff of the concerning
division.

7. That the estimate prepared after
the inspection and line chart are in two
parts. The first part of the estimate deals
with the transmission from 11 KV line
and for this purpose all necessary poles
and other materials are provided to the
consumers free of cost from the subsidy
provided by the State Government. The
second part of the estimate deals with the
transformation, under this estimate the
entire materials including 25 KVA
transformer with materials are provided to
consumer free of cost, as per scheme.

8. That the aforesaid policy is
provided to consumers on first come first
serve basis hence as per instructions
issued by the State Government the
materials are provided to consumers on
the basis of determination of the seniority
fixed, after the consumer deposits the
amount
mentioned
in
terms
and
conditions which includes cost of line in
excess of 300 meters, system loading
charges, meter charge, security charge
and processing fee. Copy of the circulars
dated 31.8.2010 and 30.6.2011 are jointly
annexed with this affidavit and are
marked as Annexure No. SCA-1A.

9. That as per instructions issued by
the
U.P.
Electricity
Regulatory
Commission under the Cost Data Book
for recovery of expenses and other
charges from prospective consumers for
taking electric supply which is binding
upon the licensee is to the effect that in
the matters of private tube-well ( PTW)
the concreting material ( brick ballast,
sand, cement) and labour shall be
provided by the consumer for the PTW (
private tube-well) connection. However,
actual requirement of material, etc. shall
be communicated by the licensee to the
consumer while offering terms and
conditions for PTW ( private tube-well)
connection. It further provides that any
subsidy for PTW ( private tube-well)
consumer in respect of new connection
shall be deducted from line charge.

11. That the terms and conditions
finalized on 19.2.2011 clearly indicates an
amount of Rs. 14,175/- to be deposited by
the petitioner which does not include any
carriage of material from store and
erection of line plus over head charges
which is shown in both the estimates as
Rs.15,121/- and Rs.15,725/- applicable
under the complete deposit scheme by the
consumers and in present case under
which the materials are provided to
consumers by the department free of cost.
The carriage and erection plus over head
charges are mentioned for the purpose of
preparation of the estimate, if a consumer
obtains a connection under the full deposit
scheme and does not take benefit of
normal scheme. True copy of the terms
and conditions dated 19.2.2011 which
indicates an amount of Rs. 14,175/- to be
deposited by the petitioner with certain
other conditions is annexed with this
affidavit and is marked as Annexure No.
SCA-3.

Our Findings

8.

We
have
considered
the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. The only
1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

dispute involved in this writ petition is as
to
whether
the
petitioner
should
construct the electric line of 315 meters
from the materials provided by the
respondent
or
the
respondent
corporation itself should construct the
line ?

9. From the perusal of the report
dated 31.1.2011, line chart and the
estimate
of
transmission
and
transformation, it is evident that the total
estimate for construction of line was
sanctioned for Rs. 1,44,377/- chargeable
as under : -

(i)Chargeable to corporation Rs.
1,32,602/-

(ii)Chargeable
to
consumer
Rs.
11,775/-

Total Rs. 1,44,377/-

10. As per circular dated 31.8.2010
(SCA-1A) issued by the Managing
Director,
Purvanchal
Vidyut
Vitran
Nigam Ltd., no line charges would be
realised from the tube-well consumer up
to 300 meters distance. In paragraph 8 of
the
short
counter
affidavit
,
the
respondents have themselves stated that
materials are provided to the consumer
after depositing the amount mentioned in
terms and conditions which includes cost
of line in excess of 300 meters. It
undisputed
that
the
petitioner
has
deposited the required amount pursuant to
the order dated 19.2.2011. The circular
clearly shows that for laying the line up to
300 meters nothing is chargeable from the
petitioner
who
is
seeking
electric
connection for tube-well. The aforesaid
sum of Rs.1,32,602/-, chargeable to the
respondent- corporation as per their own
line chart and report dated 31.1.2011
bearing sanction order; consist of the
transmission cost of Rs. 56,863/- and
transformation cost of Rs. 75,739/- (
Annexure SCA-2). We find that the
transmission charges include cost of
various
materials
and
expenses
of
concreting of pole, concreting of stay,
earthing complete and carriage and
erection+overhead
charges.
Likewise
transformation charges of Rs.75,739/-
include cost of various materials and
expenses of concreting of pole, concreting
of stay, earthing complete and carriage
and erection + overhead charges. Thus, as
per
own
documents
filed
by
the
respondent - corporation, it is evident that
the sanctioned estimate includes the
expenses of construction of line. The
entire amount chargeable to the petitioner
as per sanction order has been paid by the
petitioner. The rest of the amount of the
sanctioned estimate is chargeable to the
respondent-corporation under the scheme
itself.

11. Since as per circular of the
respondent-corporation dated 31.8.2010,
nothing is to be charged from the tubewell consumer for laying the electric line
up to 300 meters and also since for rest of
15 meters, the respondent-corporation has
charged a sum of Rs. 2,250/- towards cost
of line as evident from line chart and the
report and they have also made provision
of carriage and erection of 315 meters line
as per estimates of transmission and
transformation which has been made
chargeable to the corporation as per
approved report dated 31.1.2011 and as
such the stand of the respondents that the
petitioner should construct the whole
electric line of 315 meters from the
materials provided by the corporation,
does not appears to be correct and
justified. The
maximum
which
the
respondents could have required the
2 All] Surendra Prasad Rai Vs. Addl.Commissioner & Ors.

1067
petitioner to pay could be that the
petitioner should bear the cost of
construction of line beyond 300 meters.
However, in this regard, we find that as
per line chart and approved report
containing sanction of the estimate, a sum
of Rs.11,775/- has been made chargeable
to the consumer ( petitioner) which
includes Rs.2,250/- towards cost of 15
meters line @ 150 per meter which is
mentioned as cost of line in the order
19.2.2011. A sum of Rs. 11,775/-
alongwith security of Rs.2,400/- total
Rs.14,175/- has been deposited by the
petitioner
on
21.2.2011
which
is
undisputed. Under the circumstances it
appears to be not justifiable for the
respondent-corporation to require the
petitioner to construct the line from the
materials provided by the corporation.

12. The learned counsel for the
respondents has also submitted that as per
order dated 19.2.2011 ( Annexure No.3)
the petitioner was to enter into agreement
and thereafter he has to construct the line
from the materials provided by the
corporation and as per Line Order/ Work
Order dated 20.6.2011 also the line is to
be constructed by the petitioner. We find
that the order dated 19.2.2011 and Line
Order/ Work Order dated 20.6.2011 are
on printed proforma and as such it has to
be
read
harmoniously
with
the
description/ calculation of charges given
therein,
the
contents
of
sanctioned
estimate under the normal scheme and the
circular of the Managing Director dated
31.8.2010
(Annexure
No.
SCA-1A)
which we have already discussed in
preceding paragraphs. This circular is
wholly undisputed rather it has been
referred and relied by the respondents in
paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit
contending that consumer is to deposit the
amount mentioned in the terms and
conditions which includes cost of line in
excess of 300 meter, system loading
charges, meter charge, security charge
and processing fee. It is also evident from
the report dated 31.1.2011, line chart and
the order dated 19.2.2011 that the
petitioner has deposited a sum of
Rs.2,250/- towards cost of line of 15
meters i.e. beyond 300 meters. Thus there
is no force in the submission of learned
counsel for the respondents.

13. In view of the above, we are of
the view that the impugned order dated
18.10.2012 (Annexure No. 9) is wholly
unjustified and is accordingly set aside.
The respondent no. 2 is directed to
construct the line expeditiously preferably
within a period of three months from the
date a certified copy of this order is filed
before him by the petitioner.

14. In view of the discussions made
above, the writ petition is allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to
cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL- SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24778 of 2013

Surendra Prasad Rai

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner & Ors...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shamimul Hasnain, Sri Dhirendra Kr.
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mahesh Narain Mishra