# Anubhav Jaiswal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1152
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-08-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44867 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anubhav-jaiswal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43108
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Electric Supply Code 2005-Clause 4.3-New
electric connection-premises subjected to
transfer-petitioner 4th purchaser-where the
premises sub-divided-liability shall be fixed
pro-rata
basis-petitioner
himself
not
provided
complete
information-order
passed by authority can not be faultedhowever if complete information furnishedafter holding enquiry-liability to be fixed in
terms of provision of code-petition disposed
of.

Held: Para-11
We have perused the impugned order, and
we do not find any such exercise having
been undertaken presumably on account of
the fact that the petitioner himself did not
provide the entire information. In the
circumstances the impugned order ex-facie
cannot be faulted with, but in view of the
provisions of Clause 4.3 of the Code, 2005,
the matter requires a fresh determination
after putting the original owner Shri Islam
Beg as well to notice.

## Text

1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
involved, the Court has to strictly construe
the provisions and no addition or assumption
of powers can be impliedly acknowledged.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has been unable to show any such provision
which may directly and specifically authorise
the Zila Panchayat to receive the amount of
penalty realised as fine in a criminal
prosecution by a court of competent
jurisdiction according to Rule 85 of General
Rules Criminal. It is only such fines that can
be credited as required by law. In the instant
case in the absence of any such law having
been pointed out which may authorise the
Zila Panchayat to claim such fines to be
deposited in its funds as a matter of right, the
prayer made by the petitioner Zila Panchayat
cannot be acknowledged or accepted in law.

15. The writ petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44867 of 2014

Anubhav Jaiswal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mahboob Ahmad

Electric Supply Code 2005-Clause 4.3-New
electric connection-premises subjected to
transfer-petitioner 4th purchaser-where the
premises sub-divided-liability shall be fixed
pro-rata
basis-petitioner
himself
not
provided
complete
information-order
passed by authority can not be faultedhowever if complete information furnishedafter holding enquiry-liability to be fixed in
terms of provision of code-petition disposed
of.

Held: Para-11
We have perused the impugned order, and
we do not find any such exercise having
been undertaken presumably on account of
the fact that the petitioner himself did not
provide the entire information. In the
circumstances the impugned order ex-facie
cannot be faulted with, but in view of the
provisions of Clause 4.3 of the Code, 2005,
the matter requires a fresh determination
after putting the original owner Shri Islam
Beg as well to notice.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. This case has certain peculiar facts
with regard to the liability and apportionment
of electricity dues in respect of a premise that
came to be succeeded by several owners.

2. The original owner of the premise
Shri Islam Beg sold part of the premises in
favour of one Jitendra Kumar Srivastava in
the year 2008. Shri Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava in turn sold it to one Smt. Swati
Chaurasiya in the year 2009, who in turn
sold it to one Shri R.K. Malviya in the year
2011. The petitioner is the fourth purchaser
of part of the said premises under a sale deed
dated 12/4/2012. The petitioner wanted to
absolve himself of any liability of electricity
dues and obtain a new connection for the
portion which he has purchased.

3. An inspection was carried out and a
theft proceeding was initiated against the
petitioner. The petitioner appears to have filed
Writ Petition No.30684/2013 which was
disposed of on 10/12/2013 by the following
judgment:
3 All]. Anubhav Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1153

"The grievance of the petitioner in
the matter of new connection being
provided in his name at the residential
house
No.64/1
Keedganj,
Allahabad
needs to be examined by the respondent
no.2 at the first instance.

4. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of with a direction to the
petitioner to approach the respondent no.2
along with certified copy of this order
within a period of two weeks from today
and the respondent no.2 shall look into the
grievance of the petitioner and pass an
appropriate order within a period of two
weeks thereafter.

5. We make it clear that if there are
any arrears of the previous connection it
shall be necessary that these dues are
cleared
before
new
connection
is
provided."

6. Since the same was not being
redressed, the petitioner filed Contempt
Application
No.2225/2014.
On
the
issuance of the notice, the Chief Engineer
has now disposed of the representation of
the
petitioner
by
the
impugned
communication dated 21/4/2014 which
has been assailed in the present writ
petition.

7. The contention of Shri Ashok
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the petitioner cannot be saddled
with the liability of the entire premises
and the dues against Shri Islam Beg have
to be realised from him. He contends that
Shri Islam Beg continues to enjoy the
electricity
connection
without
any
proceeding for disconnection inspite of
dues on him, and on the other hand the
petitioner is being denied the new
electricity connection. He further submits
that the petitioner has made certain
deposits yet the respondents have refused
a new connection to the petitioner subject
to deposit of the entire dues on the entire
premises and payment of the other dues
referred to in the order dated 21/4/2014.

8. Shri Mehboob Ahmad, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that
so far as the payments are concerned,
unless it is cleared in terms of Clause 4.3
of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005,
(hereinafter called the "Code, 2005") it
will not be possible for the Electricity
Department to grant a new connection to
the petitioner as desired by him. He
further submits that if such dues are
cleared of then a decision can be taken by
the licensor or its competent authority in
the matter as per the aforesaid provisions.
He further contends that processing can
be
done
including
fixing
of
any
proportionate liability in the event of sale
and purchase of a divided share of the
property. The petitioner having not
approached under the aforesaid provision,
and there being no application to that
effect nor any evidence to support the
same, the representation of the petitioner
had to be rejected. He submits that now
the entire facts have been stated in the
present writ petition and in the aforesaid
background the claim of the petitioner can
be decided keeping in view the aforesaid
provision.

9.

Having
considered
the
submissions raised, Clause 4.3 of the
Electricity Supply Code, 2005 is extracted
herein:

"4.3.
New
Connections-General.-
(a)The system of supply and voltage shall
depend on the category of the consumer
and the load as per details given in
Chapter 3.
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

[(b) Application form for obtaining
new
connection
and
for
enhancement/reduction of load shall be
made available to the applicant free of
charge at all offices of the Licensee. The
Licensee shall also put them on its
website for downloading photocopies of a
blank form may be made by the applicant
and shall be accepted by the Licensee.
The
Licensee
shall
endeavour
to
introduce systems facilitating electronic
filing of the applications for release of
connections
through
meters
(all
categories),
or
filing/processing
for
connections
through
prepaid
meters
provided
commercially
viable
and
sustainable technology is available.]

(c) The licensee/local authority shall
designate Officers/authority for accepting
applications in respect of sanction of load (for
different categories of load) for new connection
and releasing load by way of giving new
connection. However the local authority for a
rural area may frame it's own procedure for
release of connection from time to time which
shall as far as possible be in conformity to
approved
guidelines/specifications/costs
specified by Commission.

(d)
All
information
relating
to
procedure, fees, designated officers for
releasing new connections may be displayed
on the notice boards of sub-division office,
Divisional
offices
and
offices
of
DGM's/GM's/ office of licensee. Public
information counters for new forms, filing,
and disseminating information status in the
above offices, with computerized facilities in
all towns with a population greater than 10
lakhs may be made operational within a time
frame of one year.

(e) The electronic filing of a new
application, status of connection pending to
be released, and tracking of status of a
connection through IVRS facility may also be
made possible in a phased manner in all
cities, through use of information technology,
on the internet website, centralized call
centres, and proper linking with the subdivision/Division/DGM/GM offices.

[(f) (i) It will be the duty of the seller
and of the purchaser to find out the
outstanding electricity dues up to the date
of sale, and further that both seller and
purchaser will be either/or, jointly and
severally liable to pay the outstanding
electricity dues/obtain No dues certificate.

(ii) Before sale of a premise is made,
the outstanding dues will be cleared and,
in
the
alternative
the
deed
to
agreement/sale will specifically mention
the outstanding dues and the method of its
payment "Outstanding dues" means all
dues pending on a premises including late
payment surcharge.

(iii) In case the no-dues certificate is
not obtained by the old owner, new owner
before
purchase
of
property
may
approach
the
licensee
for
no-dues
certificate, by giving the reference of the
connection in said premises. The licensee
shall either intimate the pending dues, if
any, on the premises or issue no dues
certificate within 30 working days from
the date of application.

(iv) The outstanding dues will be first
charge on the assets of the company, and
the licensee shall ensure that this is
entered in an agreement with new
applicant.

(v) The recovery proceedings against
the defaulting consumer, and where the
defaulting consumer is a company, from
3 All]. Anubhav Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1155
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.

(vi) In case the electricity connection
to the said premises was given with the
consent of house owner, such person shall
ensure the payment of all arrears/dues of
electricity by the tenant before the tenant
vacates the premises.

(vii) However the above conditions
shall not apply if inconsistent with the
provision of any higher Court order or an
order as a consequence to it.

(viii) The application shall be
processed by licensee on clearing of
dues.]

(g) Where the property has been
legally sub-divided, the outstanding dues
for the consumption of energy on such
premises, if any, shall be divided on prorata basis.

(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, dues on the other portion(s)
of such premises have not been paid, nor
shall the licensee demand record of last
paid bills of other portion(s) from such
applicants."

10. A perusal thereof leaves no room
for doubt that the outstanding dues shall
be the first charge on the premises itself
and in the event the property has been
legally sub-divided, the outstanding dues
on account of purchase of such premises,
if any, shall be divided on pro-rata basis.

11. We have perused the impugned
order, and we do not find any such
exercise
having
been
undertaken
presumably on account of the fact that the
petitioner himself did not provide the
entire information. In the circumstances
the impugned order ex-facie cannot be
faulted with, but in view of the provisions
of Clause 4.3 of the Code, 2005, the
matter requires a fresh determination after
putting the original owner Shri Islam Beg
as well to notice.

12. Consequently, we dispose of this
writ petition with a direction to the
Executive Engineer concerned to take
stock of the situation and after making
inquiry and considering all the objections
if any, as well as the documents on which
reliance has been placed by the petitioner
proceed
to
pass
appropriate
orders
expeditiously, preferably within a period
of three months from the date of
production of the certified copy of this
order, provided the petitioner undertakes
to deposit the amount which falls due in
his share upon such determination.

13. A certified copy of the order shall
be filed by the petitioner within ten days
before the Executive Engineer along with an
exhaustive representation, coupled with the
documents on which reliance is being placed
and the same shall be disposed of after
putting Shri Islam Beg or any of the
appropriate person to notice.

14. Shri Ashok Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Contempt Application No. 2225/2014 has
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
become infructuous and it may be
directed to be consigned to records.

15.

Accordingly,
Contempt
Application No. 2225/2014 shall be
treated to have become infructuous and it
shall be consigned to records for which a
copy of this order shall be placed on the
records of the contempt application.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69033 of 2010

Indra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri R.B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I. Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Sri Tarun Verma

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226compassionate appointment-scheme with
ex-gratia
payment
of
Rs.
9,50,000/-
framed-petitioner
opted
compassionate
appointment-petition after unreasonable
delay of 12 years-held-no direction for
appointment can be given-if petitioner
claims for ex-gratia payment be considered
as per existing scheme.

Held: Para-14
This petition was filed in the year 2010,
whereas, the father of the petitioner died
on 11.9.1998 thus is a belated petition.
Considering the fact that the father of
the petitioner had already died in 1998
and the application was kept pending
would
not
attract
the
principle
of
legitimate expectation. The authorities
of the bank kept corresponding with the
petitioner and also gave a choice for
compassionate appointment or ex-gratia
payment would not create a vested right
in
the
petitioner.
The
policy
for
compassionate
appointment
was
scrapped and a new policy of ex-gratia
payment in lieu of appointment on
compassionate ground was formulated,
the case of the petitioner can be
considered as per the policy in force on
the date on which the petitioner's
application would be considered. The
petitioner
has
not
explained
satisfactorily, as to why, the petitioner
has approached the Court after twelve
years. The petitioner is entitled to get his
application
for
ex-gratia
payment,
considered as per the existing scheme.

Case Law discussed:
[(2010) 11 SCC 661]; Special Appeal No. 14 of
2007; (2004) 7 SCC 271; (2007) 7 SCC 265;
(2008) 11 SCC 384; 2012 STPL(Web) 320 SC ;
(2007) 4 SCC 778; (2007) 11 SCC 40; (1999) 7
SCC 314; (2006) 5 SCC 702; 2003 (7) SCC
270; [2006(5) SCC 702]; (2010)11 SCC 661;
2014(2) ADJ (FB).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
Sri
Ashish
Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents.

2. The father of the petitioner was
working as a Class-IV employee with
respondent-bank and died in harness on
11.9.1998. The mother of the petitioner
made a request on 12.11.1998 for
compassionate appointment. The matter
was kept pending on one pretext or the
other and no decision was taken, however,
the petitioner received a letter on 3.2.2005
directing him to appear for interview on
14.2.2005 and by letter dated 30.7.2005
the petitioner was given an option either
to accept Rs. 9,50,000/- towards ex-gratia
payment or compassionate appointment.