# Chandra Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 350
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-01-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4606 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Anil Kumar Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-prakash-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42814
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code-2005-chapter
IV
clause-4(1)
Provisio
II-fresh
electric
connection-for domestic use-old premises
owned
by
subsequent
purchaser-new
connection can be given only on production
of no dues certificate-judgment relied by
petitioner-having no application-petition
disposed of.

Held: Para-3
Having perused the same we are of the
opinion that since in the instant case there
is already a clear statutory provision to that
effect as such a fresh electricity connection
can only be granted if No Dues Certificate is
given by the person, who is seeking to have
fresh electricity connection. Consequently,
the ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot
come to the aid of the petitioner in view of
the aforesaid statutory provision in the
Electricity Supply Code, 2005 that has been
promulgated
much
after

## Text

350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
registration of the FIR. But it is a case where
this court feels impelled to interfere as the order
does not stand the scrutiny in the eyes of law.
The order is completely without jurisdiction for
the reason of court's complete failure to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and that
too on absolutely illegal grounds. If the judicial
officer refuses to exercise his jurisdiction it is
just as objectionable and untenable where he
wrongly exercises the jurisdiction though he
had none under law. Who can file a complaint
or lodge an FIR is a question of law. If the
same has been brought by a person who lacks
the sanction of law or who is prohibited by
some provision of law, then the prosecution as
a result of such filing might be illegal. On the
other hand if a person entitled to lodge an FIR
and bring the complaint is dis-entitled to do so
under some wrong conception of law, this is
also a pure illegality and this court must
interfere to set the mistake right in order to
meet the ends of justice.

8. In the present case a person
entitled to lodge the FIR or bring a
complaint failed to exercise his legal right
because the judicial doors were not kept
ajar under a wrong conception of law
which the Magistrate had in his mind and
which
prompted
him
to
pass
the
impugned order whereby he refused to
direct the registration of FIR.

9. Being non-est in the eyes of law
the impugned order stands quashed.

10. The court below is directed to
pass fresh order in the light of the
observations made by the court in
accordance with law.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4606 of 2014

Chandra Prakash Gupta..... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors...... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dr. S.K. Yadav.

Electric
Supply
Code-2005-chapter
IV
clause-4(1)
Provisio
II-fresh
electric
connection-for domestic use-old premises
owned
by
subsequent
purchaser-new
connection can be given only on production
of no dues certificate-judgment relied by
petitioner-having no application-petition
disposed of.

Held: Para-3
Having perused the same we are of the
opinion that since in the instant case there
is already a clear statutory provision to that
effect as such a fresh electricity connection
can only be granted if No Dues Certificate is
given by the person, who is seeking to have
fresh electricity connection. Consequently,
the ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot
come to the aid of the petitioner in view of
the aforesaid statutory provision in the
Electricity Supply Code, 2005 that has been
promulgated
much
after
2004.
Consequently, if the petitioner applies for a
fresh electricity connection complying with
the aforesaid condition, it shall be open to
the respondents to consider the same in
accordance with law.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 2004 SC 2171

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, who has prayed for a mandamus
1 All] Chandra Prakash Gupta Vs. State of U.P.and Ors.
351
directing the respondents to give a domestic
electricity connection, which is a new
connection in respect of the premises, which
the petitioner states to have purchased in an
auction from the State Bank of India under
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002. The contention
of the petitioner is that since he is an auction
purchaser he is not liable to clear any
erstwhile dues in respect of the same
premises and that too even in a different
name, in as much as, it is the liability of the
previous owner and not of the petitioner.
The petitioner has relied upon the judgment
of three Judges in the case of Ahmedabad
Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Inns Pvt.
Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2004 SC
2171 wherein, in the absence of any
statutory provision, it was held that if an
auction purchaser applies for a fresh
connection then no liability with regard to
the previous dues of the erstwhile owner
can be fixed upon him and therefore, a fresh
connection cannot be denied.

2. We have perused the ratio of the
said decision and we find that in the
Electricity Supply Code, 2005, a statutory
provision has now been introduced under
Clause 4.1 of Chapter 4 of the Code,
which is quoted below:

"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 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 specified by the
Commission in clause 4.8;

Provided also in case of application
for supply from a village or hamlet or area
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 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 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 represent
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his case is provided to the applicant and a
reasoned order is passed by an officer as
designated by the licensee."

3. Having perused the same we are
of the opinion that since in the instant
case there is already a clear statutory
provision to that effect as such a fresh
electricity connection can only be granted
if No Dues Certificate is given by the
person, who is seeking to have fresh
electricity connection. Consequently, the
ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot
come to the aid of the petitioner in view
of the aforesaid statutory provision in the
Electricity Supply Code, 2005 that has
been promulgated much after 2004.
Consequently, if the petitioner applies for
a fresh electricity connection complying
with the aforesaid condition, it shall be
open to the respondents to consider the
same in accordance with law.

4. With the aforesaid direction the
writ petition is disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 5318 of 1987
along with Service Single No. 1172 of
1996 and Service Single No. 6221 of 1987

Km. Suman Srivastava..... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors...... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Shukla, Sri Akhilesh Kalra, Sri I.H.
Farooqui, In person, Shyam Mohan.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.K. Tewari, Sri Arshad Rizvi, C.S.C.,
K.D. Nag, Sri Ved Prakash.

U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection
Board Act 1982-Appointment of Asst.
Teacher
in
C.T.
grade-advertised
05.12.1986-appointment on short term
vacancy-management issued appointment
letter on 31.12.1986-without approval of
DIOS-on 02.02.1987 manager sent the
selection list for approval-28.02.1987 RIGS
accorded approval-on 25.08.1987
appointment letter issued to Smt. Rastogiwho joined on 28.08.1987-subsequently on
misconception
by
manager-approval
granted earlier canceled-which resulted
termination of her services-held-without
hearing to Mrs. Rastogi termination can not
be passed-refusal of joining prior to
approval
of
selection-meaninglessappointment of last candidate of meritwholly illegal-petition by Rastogi allowedand the petition of Km. Suman Srivastava
dismissed-follow up direction given.

Held: Para-26
It is evident from the facts that on
25.08.1987 the case of Km. Suman
Srivastava has been rejected by the
RIGS and on the same date appointment
letter is issued to Km. Abha Rastogi and
she joined on the following date. The
approval was granted by R.I.G.S. on
28.02.1987. The Manager of the College
in connivance with Suman Srivastava
tried to mislead the RIGS by creating an
impression that Km. Abha Rastogi has
refused
to
join
vide
letter
dated
12.02.1987. The RIGS in the impugned
order dated 25.08.1987 takes notice of
the fact that Km. Abha Rastogi vide
letter dated 25.04.1987 had complained
to the RIGS that the Management is not
cooperating
and
not
issuing
the
appointment letter and taking notice of
the fact that the Management had
allowed
Km.
Abha
Rastogi
last
opportunity to join by 10.02.1987 and
vide
letter
dated
12.02.1987
Abha
Rastogi
refused
the
offer
of
appointment, the impugned order has
been passed without issuing notice to