Chandan Dehiya and Another v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Thru. M.D. and 3 Others

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1049 of 2022 Petitioner :- Chandan Dehiya And Another Respondent :- Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Thru. M.D. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Maria Fatima,Shreya Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Aprajita Bansal,Adarsh Pratap Singh,Harsha Yadav,Pranav Agarwal,Shishir Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for respondent no.1 power corporation and learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4.

¶2Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are occupiers of property in dispute and are residing in the same. They are having an electricity connection since the year 2016 which is sought to be disconnected by the respondent no.1 power corporation in the year 2022, hence, petitioners have filed present writ petition.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there can at best be a dispute with regard to security of payments of bills of the power corporation and for the said purposes petitioners are ready and willing to submit indemnity bond as provided in Clause 4.4 read with Annexure 4.2 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

¶4Learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4 strongly opposes the submission of counsel for petitioners. He submits that it is respondent no.3 and 4 who are owner of the property and petitioners' occupation of the same is illegal. He further submit power corporation should not provide any electricity connection to the petitioners.

¶5Learned counsel for Electricity Board submits that since there was a dispute hence, connection was being withdrawn and in case petitioners submit indemnity bond as per law the same shall be duly provided.

¶6We have considered the submissions of counsel for parties.

¶7It is not in dispute that petitioners are living in property since long and were having an electricity connection. There may a dispute between petitioner and respondent no.3 & 4 with regard to property. Respondent no.3 and 4 in the said circumstances can take proceedings in accordance with law for eviction of petitioners. No law can permit an owner to disconnect the municipal services of a person occupying the property and force him to live in an inhumane condition and coercively evict him. Eviction from a property can only take place in accordance with law. Annexure 4.2 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 specifically provide that an occupier of a building can give indemnity bond for connection so that payment of the dues of electricity consumed by him are assured to be paid to the power corporation and that liability does not fall upon the property or the landlord.

¶8In view thereof, it is provided that petitioners shall submit required indemnity bond in accordance with Annexure 4.2 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 to respondent no.2 Sub-Divisional Officer, 33/11 K.V. Electricity Sub Station, New Alambagh, MVVNL, Lucknow within a period of 15 days from today along with a certified copy of this order. Respondent no.2 shall duly consider the same and in case of any lacunae, require petitioner to complete the same which petitioners shall duly complete at the earliest. The electricity supply of the petitioners shall remain undisturbed.

¶9It goes without saying that respondent no.3 and 4, who claimed to be owner of the property, can take appropriate proceedings against the petitioners for their eviction in accordance with law and this order or the electricity connection provided to the petitioners under this order shall not in any manner create any right in favour of petitioners for the said proceedings.

¶10It is further made clear that respondent no.1 power corporation shall not insist upon the title documents from the petitioners as was claimed earlier.

¶11With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Arti/- [Manish Kumar,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench