# Anand Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 399
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 32847 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49831
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. UP Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Para
2(oo), 4.1 & 4.3 - Electricity connection -
Entitlement of occupier of a shop of the
premises - Dues on the other portion of
premises, but no dues on the shop - Effect
- Held, as per Scheme of the Act, 2003, an
occupier of the premises is entitled for
electricity connection and licensee cannot
deny the electric connection to such an
occupier of the premises - Licensee shall
not refuse electric connection to an
applicant on the ground that dues on
other portions of such premises have not
been paid, nor shall the licensee demand
record of last paid bills of other portions
from such applicants. (Para 13 and 17)

Writ petition disposed of . (E-1)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

3 All. Anand Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399
opportunity, within the period of twenty
five days prescribed in Sub-Section (4-B)
and intimation of the adjourned meeting
had been duly given by the Collector to the
elected members within the time prescribed
under the said provision.

30. The contention of the learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
the
adjournment of meeting by the Presiding
Officer on 7.9.2022 by giving intimation to
the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar
was a device to get over the provisions of
Sub-Section (3)(ii) of Section 15 as clear
notice of fifteen days initially was not
given to the elected members does not
impress us, inasmuch as, nothing could be
brought before us to contend that the
Presiding Officer did not apply for leave or
leave was not duly granted to him. The
truth of the circumstance faced by the
Presiding Officer, the reason for adjourning
the meeting, cannot be examined by us.

For the above discussion, we find
that there is no violation of the mandatory
provisions of Sub-Section (4-B) of Section
15 of the Act, 1961 on the part of the
Presiding Officer. There is no error in the
decision making process. The challenge to
the resolution dated 30.9.2022, therefore,
cannot be sustained.

The writ petition is dismissed
being devoid of merits.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 399
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Writ C No. 32847 of 2022

Anand Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prashant Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Udit Chandra

A. UP Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Para
2(oo), 4.1 & 4.3 - Electricity connection -
Entitlement of occupier of a shop of the
premises - Dues on the other portion of
premises, but no dues on the shop - Effect
- Held, as per Scheme of the Act, 2003, an
occupier of the premises is entitled for
electricity connection and licensee cannot
deny the electric connection to such an
occupier of the premises - Licensee shall
not refuse electric connection to an
applicant on the ground that dues on
other portions of such premises have not
been paid, nor shall the licensee demand
record of last paid bills of other portions
from such applicants. (Para 13 and 17)

Writ petition disposed of . (E-1)

List of Cases cited :-

1. Seema Mansoor Vs U.P. Power Corporation &
ors.; 2014 (6) ADJ 672

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondent no.1 and
Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the
respondents no.2 and 3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is tenant of a
small shop measuring 7'4'' x 7' in House
No. CK-48/207 Rehmat Market, Hadha
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Saray, Varanasi. It is alleged that he is
tenant of the aforesaid shop since 1997 and
he uses alternative sources of energy. Now,
he wants an electric connection and for that
purpose moved an application on 22.2.2022
before the respondent no.3 for electric
connection in the aforesaid premises, but
the respondents are not granting electric
connection on the pretext that there are
certain dues in respect of the building in
which the shop of the petitioner is situated.

3. Aggrieved with the non-grant of
electricity
connection
by
the
respondents, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition praying for the
following relief:-

"i. issue, a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.3 to provide the
electricity connection in the shop of the
petitioner i.e. Shop at CK-48/207 Rehmat
Market,
Hadaha
Saray,
Varanasi
in
accordance with the provisions."

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents no.2 and 3 submits that since
there are dues with respect to the building
in question, therefore, no new electric
connection can be granted for the shop
occupied by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that there are no electricity dues
either against the petitioner or in respect of
premises in question i.e. shop occupied by
the petitioner, therefore, there is no legal
impediment
to
grant
new
electric
connection to the petitioner.

6. We have carefully considered the
submission of learned counsel for the
parties.

7. We find that para 4.1 of the Uttar
Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as "the Code,
2005") provide for grant of supply of
electricity, which is reproduced below:-

"CHAPTER 4

PROCEDURE
FOR
GRANT OF SUPPLY

4.1 Licensee's Obligation to
Supply :

The
Licensee
shall
on
an
application by the owner or occupier of any
premises, located in his area of supply, give
supply of electricity to such premises within
the one month after receipt of completed
application showing payments of necessary
charges and other compliances :

Provided
also
in
case
of
application for supply from a village or
hamlet or areas wherein no provision for
supply of electricity exists, the Commission
shall extend the time period for provision of
supply appropriately on a case-to-case
basis:

Provided further that, in case of
arrears of electricity dues in respect of any
of old consumers / premises where
ownership
has
changed,
the
new
connection shall be released to the new
owners only after submission of No-Dues
Certificate as provided in clause 4.3(f): and

Provided that, if there are
arrears of electricity dues on a premises, a
new connection shall not be released to a
new applicant/or the old consumer on the
same premises. The connection shall also
not be released if--

(i) The applicant (being an
individual) is an associate or relative (as
defined in Section 2 and 6 respectively of
the Companies Act, 1956) of the defaulting
consumer,

(ii) Or where the applicant being
a
company
or
body
corporate
or
3 All. Anand Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
401
association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not, or artificial juridical
person, is controlled, or having controlling
interest
in
the
defaulting
consumer,
provided, the Licensee shall not refuse
electric connection on this ground, unless
an opportunity to present his case is
provided to the applicant and a reasoned
order is passed by an officer as designated
by the licensee."

8. Learned counsel for respondent
nos. 2 and 3 has heavily relied upon the
third proviso to para 4.1 of the Code, 2005
and submits that since there are electricity
dues on the premises i.e. the building in
question, therefore, no new connection can
be granted with respect to the shop
occupied by the petitioner.

9. We find that the submissions made
by learned counsel for the respondent nos.2
and 3 is totally misplaced.

10. The word "Occupier" and the
word "Premises" have been defined in para
2(oo) and para 2(ss) of the Code, 2005 as
under:-

"(oo) "Occupier" means the
owner or authorised person in occupation
of the premises where energy is used or
proposed to be used.

(ss) "Premises" means the area /
portion of the building / shed / field etc., for
which, the electric connection has been
applied for or sanctioned for a single
consumer."

11. Restriction on a new electric
connection on account of dues in respect of
the same premises, has been provided in
the third proviso to para 4.1 of the Code,
2005. The word "premises" has been
defined in Section 2(ss) of the Code, 2005,
that premises is an area/portion of the
building/shed/field etc., for which the
electric connection has been applied for or
sanctioned for a single consumer. Thus, the
shop occupied by the petitioner is a
premises within the meaning of para 2(ss)
of the Code, 2005, and if the petitioner is a
tenant of the shop then he being a tenant
i.e. the authorised person in occupation
shall be the occupier within the meaning of
para 2(oo) of the Code, 2005.

12. In Seema Mansoor v. U.P. Power
Corporation and 3 Others reported in
2014 (6) ADJ 672, this Court, relying upon
the Statement of Objects and Reasons and
Section 42 and 43 of Electricity Act, 2003,
read with Clause 4.4 of the Electricity
Supply Code, 2005, observed as under:

"7. Electrical undertakings have
acquired the character of public utility by
reason of their monopolistic position. The
State in exercise of its legislative power has
enacted the Electricity Act 2003 to
consolidate the laws relating to generation,
transmission, distribution, trading and use
of electricity and generally for taking
measures conducive to development of
electricity industry as also to protect the
interest of consumers and supply of
electricity to all areas. The same is
reflected from the statement of objects and
reasons of Electricity Act, 2003.

8. Section 42 of the Act deals with
duties of distribution licensee. The said
section reads as under :

''42.
Duties
of
distribution
licensee and open access. - (1) it shall be a
duty of a distribution licensee to develop
and maintain an efficient, coordinated and
economical distribution system in his area
of supply and to supply electricity in
accordance with the provisions contained
in this Act.
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Section 43 of the Act cast duty
upon licensee to supply electrical energy on
request. Sub-section (1) of the said section
reads as under :

''43. Duty to supply on request. -
(1) Every distribution licensee, shall, on an
application by the owner or occupier of any
premises, given supply of electricity to 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 on 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.

(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.

10. A bare reading of the
provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 go to
show that every distribution licensee is
under an obligation not only to develop but
also to maintain efficient, coordinated and
economical distribution system in the area
of its supply. The provision of Section 43 of
the Electricity Act cast a statutory duty
upon the distribution licensee to supply
electricity not only to owner but also
occupier of premises located within the
limits of the area of its supply subject to an
application being made by owner or
occupier
in
this
regard
and
correspondingly the owner or occupier of
any premises, as the case may be, has
statutory right to supply and obtain such
electricity supply from the distribution
licensee. Of course, the right is subject to
completion of formalities provided for the
purpose.

11. Electricity Supply Code, 2005
reference of which has been made by
learned counsel for the respondents to
contend that electricity connection cannot
be granted without consent from the owner
enforced in 2005 enlists the obligations of
the licensee and consumers vis-a-vis each
other and specifies the set of practices to
provide
efficient,
cost
effective
and
consumer
friendly
service
to
the
consumers. Under Clause 2.2 (oo) of 2005
Code 'Occupier' means the owner or
authorized person in occupation of the
premises where energy is used or proposed
to be used. Clause 4.4 prescribes procedure
for processing of application for supply.
Clause 4.4 (a) which is relevant for the
purpose of the present case reads as under
:

''4.4. Processing of Application
for Supply.

(a)
Application
for
new
connections, in prescribed form (Annexure
4.1) and complete in all respects and
accompanied
by
the
prescribed
Registration-cum-processing fee, shall be
3 All. Anand Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
403
filed in duplicate in the office, specified by
the Licensee, along with attested true
copies of the following documents:

(i)Proof of ownership of the
premises in the form of registered sale deed
or partition deed or succession or heir ship
certificate or deed of last will or proof of
occupancy such as valid power of attorney
or latest rent paid receipt or valid lease
deed or indemnity form as per Annexure
4.2. Order copy of appropriate court, in
case of litigation regarding ownership of
the premises, has to be enclosed.

(ii)Approval/permission/NOC of
the local authority, if required under any
law/statute.

(iii)In case of a partnership firm,
partnership deed.

(iv)
In
case
of
a
Limited
Company,
Memorandum,
articles
of
Association, Certificate of incorporation
and list of Directors/certificate addresses.

Owner's consent for getting new
supply connection (Annexure 4.3).

12. Reference at this stage may
also be made to the relevant annexure of
Electricity Supply Code 2005. Annexure
4.3 in reference to clause 4.4 is a formate of
owner consent for getting new supply
connection. Annexure 4.2 in reference to
clause 4.4 is a form of indemnity bond
which is to be given in case the intending
consumer is not the owner of the premises.
The same is reproduced herein below :

ANNEXURE 4.2

(Ref. Clause 4.4)

This form is available
free of cost

 INDEMNITY BOND

(If the intending consumer is not
the owner of the premises)

To

From

_______________Engineer,

 _______________

______________________

 _______________

Whereas
the
land/premises
detailed hereunder, belongs to Sri/Smt.
__________and
I
am
only
lessee/tenant/occupier
of
the
said
land/premises where I have applied for the
electricity connection the said/premises and
I am not able to obtain the consent of
Sri/Smt.................................but
produced
the proof of occupancy, i. e. valid power of
attorney/latest rent paid receipt/registered
lease deed.

Thereto I, in consideration of the
grant of electricity connection to me on the
conditions of supply for which I have
executed the Agreement, further agree to
indemnify and keep harmless the Licensee
from all damages and claims whatsoever,
including costs of suit, original petitions
and all manner of legal or other
proceedings that the Licensee may incur or
likely to incur on account of any action of
threat by or at the instance of the owner of
the said Land/premises (whether such
owner
be
the
said
Sri/Smt.
______________or any other). I also
further agree that such loss, damages and
any other claim resulting out of the
electricity connection being given to me
without the consent of the owner of the
land/premises are also recoverable from me
and my properties under the provisions of
the Revenue Recovery Act, in force at the
time of such recovery, or by such other
proceedings as the Licensee may deem fit to
initiate.

I hold myself answerable to costs
of such recoveries and proceedings also.

Place

Date

Witnesses
Signature
of
lessee/tenant/occupier

(1)

(2)
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Section 43 of the Act enjoins a
duty upon the licensee not only to supply
electrical energy on an application in this
behalf not only by a owner of a premises
but also a occupier which has been defined
under the Code 2005 to include any
authorized person in occupation of the
premises. A tenant would be an authorized
person in occupation of a premises.

14. A perusal of Clause 4.4 of the
Code 2005 goes to show that indemnity
form as per Annexure 4.2 can also be filed
along
with an application
for
new
connection. The purpose is to enable such
tenants, in respect of whom the owner or
landlord refuses to give no objection for a
new connection.

15. A perusal of Annexure 4.2
reproduce herein-above goes to show that
the purpose as is obvious from the reading
of the aforesaid form is to indemnify the
licensee for any loss that may accrue on
account of any act of a person in
occupation of the building though he may
not be owner. Thus, the Code 2005 provides
either for consent letter of owner of the
premises or
in the absence thereof
indemnity bond by the lessee/tenant or
occupier of the premises. Intention is, thus,
clear that either there should be owner's
consent to indemnify the licensees in case
the tenant/lessee or occupier vacates and
vanishes without leaving his address or in
the alternative tenant/lessee or occupier
may give an undertaking indemnifying any
loss or damage to licensee on account of
electricity connection being given to him
without the consent of the owner of the land
or premises making it recoverable from him
and his property under the provisions of the
Revenue Act in force at the time of such
recovery, or by such other proceedings as
the Licensee may deem fit to initiate.

16. From the reading of the
aforesaid provisions, it is clear that
licensee is under an obligation to supply
electrical energy on a proper application
being made and every owner or occupier,
which will include a tenant, of the premises
has statutory right to apply and obtain
electricity supply from the licensee subject
to his fulfilling requirements under the
provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and
the Electricity Supply Code 2005. ..."

13. Thus, from the observations made
in the aforequoted judgment in the case of
Seema Mansoor (supra) and as per
Scheme of the Act, 2003, an occupier of the
premises
is
entitled
for
electricity
connection and licensee cannot deny the
electric connection to such an occupier of
the premises.

14. The above conclusion also finds
support from the sub clause (f) (v) and (h)
of Clause 4.3 of the Code, 2005, which
read as follows:

"(f) (i) .............

(ii) .............

(iii) .............

(iv) ............

(v) The recovery proceedings
against the defaulting consumer, and
where there defaulting consumer is a
company, from the Directors of the
company, shall be ensured. Where a
financial institution has auctioned the
property without consideration to licensees
charge on assets, claims may be lodged
with the concerned financial institution
with diligent pursuance.

(h) A new connection to such subdivided premises shall be given only after
the share of outstanding dues attributed to
such sub-divided premises, is duly paid by
the applicant. Licensee shall not refuse
connection to an applicant only on the
ground that, due on the other portions(s)
3 All. Jor Singh @ Chhote Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
405
of such premises have not been paid, nor
shall the licensee demand record of last
paid bills of other portion(s) from such
applicants."

15. It is admitted case of the
respondent no. 3 that there are no dues
specific to the shop in question occupied by
the petitioner. The dues which are alleged
were
against
M/s
Rajasthan
Thread,
Azamul Khan, Sri Sharda Pd Singh,
Mohiuddin Ahmed. Those persons are
stated to have no connection with the shop
in question occupied by the petitioner.

16. If there were dues against the
aforesaid persons as alleged by respondent
nos. 2 and 3, then they could have initiated
proceedings for recovery of the dues
against the defaulting consumers in terms
of sub-clause (f) (v) of Clause 4.3 of the
Code, 2005.

17. Under sub-clause (h) of Clause
4.3 of the Code, 2005, it has been mandated
that licensee shall not refuse electric
connection to an applicant on the ground
that dues on other portions of such
premises have not been paid, nor shall the
licensee demand record of last paid bills of
other portions from such applicants. The
counsel for the respondents have not been
able to produce any material as to any dues
specifically to the premises occupied by the
petitioner.

18. Therefore, in view of the scheme
as
enumerated
from
the
aforesaid
provisions of the Act and the Code, the
applicantion of the petitioner for electric
connection in the specific premises in
question occupied by the petitioner cannot
be rejected by the respondent nos. 2 and 3
and instead it needs to be considered and
processed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in
accordance with law.

19. For all the reasons aforestated,
this writ petition is finally disposed of with
a direction to the respondent no.3-Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Urban
Electricity
Distribution Sub Division, Hathua Market,
Varanasi to consider the application of the
petitioner for new electric connection and
take appropriate decision in accordance
with law within four weeks from the date
of submission of a certified copy of this
order,
after
affording
reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
the owner of the building.

20. It is made clear that any of the
observations made in the body of this order
shall not be treated as a finding on
landlord-tenant relationship between the
landlord of the building, who is not before
us, and the petitioner.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 405
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 36691 of 2004

Jor Singh @ Chhote Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Tripathi, Sri Ram Dayal Tiwari, Sri
Subhash Chandra Yadav, Sri Vaibhav
Goswami, Sri. M.D. Singh Sekhar (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents: