TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was no injunction or stay restraining the appellant from demanding or receiving the dues. Whether the supplier can recover the electricity dues from the purchaser of a sub-divided plot? - In this case, the first respondent had voluntarily paid the said amount to the appellant to obtain a fresh electricity connection. It cannot seek refund on the basis of any subsequent order of the Commission, in the absence of a specific direction for refund. The first respondent having paid the said amount in pursuance of its undertaking as a condition for obtaining fresh connection, is estopped from claiming the amount back, except in accordance with the terms subject to which the payment was made. The amount deposited by first respondent will however have to be refunded by the appellant, with appropriate interest, if the third respondent is ultimately found to be not liable in respect of the demand under the supplementary bills, or if third respondent actually clears the dues. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition of the first respondent. - R.V. Raveendran and L.S. Panta, JJ. For Appellant/Petitioner/P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (who) wants to establish its unit, has given an affidavit regarding payment of outstanding dues of M/s. Electro Steel, Ghaziabad installed on that plot that it is agreeable to make payment of outstanding electricity dues on their plot. Therefore, they will deposit the proportionate dues against that unit according to the area of their plot within 15 days. Otherwise, the order sanctioning the load will be deemed to be automatically cancelled. Accordingly on 18.9.2004 the first respondent deposited a sum of ₹ 863,451/- being the dues of the third respondent, pro rata, subject to the condition that in the event of the pending challenge to the demand being decided in favour of third respondent, the appellant shall refund the amount deposited by first respondent. 5. Several other plot-purchasers from third respondent, did not pay the dues of the third respondent. Appellant did not give them electricity supply. Therefore, in November, 2005, the third respondent moved an application before the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (`Commission' for short) complaining that the appellant was arbitrarily refusing power connection to the purchasers of sub-divided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 allowed the said writ petition and directed the appellant to refund the sum of ₹ 8,63,451/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of payment. The High Court was of the view that the amounts said to be due by third respondent were secured by a bank guarantee furnished by the third respondent, and therefore there was no need to retain any amount from the purchasers of the sub-divided plots. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. Whether the supplier can recover the electricity dues from the purchaser of a sub-divided plot? 8. The appellant submitted that if a consumer disposed of its premises, or any portion thereof, without clearing the dues in regard to the electricity supplied to its premises, any transferee seeking fresh electricity connection or supply of electricity to the premises, will have to clear the electricity dues of the previous occupant. The appellant referred to sub-clauses (g) and (h) of Clause 4.3 of the Electricity Supply Code, which is extracted below: (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 pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules are silent, it can stipulate such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper, to regulate its transactions and dealings. So long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and unreasonable, courts will not interfere with them. 11. A stipulation by the distributor that the dues in regard to the electricity supplied to the premises should be cleared before electricity supply is restored or a new connection is given to a premises, cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. In the absence of such a stipulation, an unscrupulous consumer may commit defaults with impunity, and when the electricity supply is disconnected for non-payment, may sell away the property and move on to another property, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible for the distributor to recover the dues. Having regard to the very large number of consumers of electricity and the frequent moving or translocating of industrial, commercial and residential establishments, provisions similar to Clause 4.3(g) and (h) of Electricity Supply Code are necessary to safeguard the interests of the distributor. We do not find anything unreasonable in a provision enabling the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
