ORDER
1. A representative suit was fifed in Public Interest by 22 Advocates practising in Nagaur seeking a permanent injunction against the Rujasthan Slate Electricity Board for securing continuous uninterrupted and equitable supply of electricity to the residents of Nagaur. In this suit an application for temporary injunction was moved claiming a temporary injunction restraining the R.S.E.B. from interrupting the supply of electricity to the residents of Nagaur. The mat Court granted a temporary mandatory injunction directing the defendants to supply electricity in appropriate manner in appropriate quantity ana not to disconnect the feeder supplying electricity to Nagaur on 132 KV line and also “from the feeder from Ratangarh to Nagaur. However, it was also directed that in case of natural calamities, out of control of RSEB, the order will be subject to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and General Conditions of Supply. It was also ditected that the defendant shall give notice of discontinuation of supply. It was also directed that in case the supply has to be discontinued in an emergency for more than 15 minutes, notice of this will have to be given. On an appeal by the R.S.E.B. this order was upheld with some modification relating to giving of nolice in case of emergency when electric supply is discontinued for a period of more than 15 minutes. The R.S.E.B. has come up in revision petition against this order.
2. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner raised a preliminary objection that when the plaintiffs are 22 in number before the First Appellate Court, only 21 of them were arrayed as respondents and therefore, the order has become final against the 22nd plaintiff. The objection has no force because the plaint itself discloses that it was a representative action brought for the benefit of the residents of Nagaur. In such case if one of the plaintitts is through inadvertence or otherwise left out, no prejudice is going to be caused to anyone and it cannot be said that the appeal was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the impugned orders. A bare reading of the impugned orders shows that they are in the nature of enforcement of provisions of law. Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides that where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of supply shall, except insofar as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the licence, be entitled, on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled in similar circumstances to a corresponding supply. Section 22-A gives powers to the State Govt. to direct a licensee in regard to the supply of energy to certain class of consumers. Section 22-B empowers the State Govt. to control the distribution and consumption of energy. It provides that if the State Govt. is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, for maintaining the supply and securing the equitable distribution of energy, it may by order provide tor regulating the supply, distribution, consumption or use thereof. Under Section 26 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 the R.S.E.B. have powers and obligations of licensee under Act 9 of 1910. The General Conditions of Supply laid down by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board provides in Condition No. 17 for failure of supply. It provides that the Board shall not be liable for any claim for loss, damage or compensation whatsoever arising out of failure of supply unless otherwise agreed to the contrary. Clause (c) of Condition No. 17 provides that whenever supply to the consumer is to be restricted due to causes beyond control of the Board, the consumer will be informed about the restricted supplies by notice in the local papers and such restrictions shall be binding on the consumers. Obviously the restriction of supply spoken of in the provision is a voluntarily restriction of supply and not disruption of supply because of factors beyond the control of the R.S.E.B. The R.S.E.B. cannot be expected to give notice of failure of supply which was unexpected or accidental. It is only when it orders shut down of electric supply for the purpose of maintenance or otherwise that a provision for the notice is made. It would be ridiculous to expect notice to be given by the R.S.E.B, about the disruption of supply about which the R.S.E.B. itself is not expected to have knowledge.
4. Moreover, while deciding on the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs it has to be taken note of that the law provides ample remedies for redressal in case of unreasonable dis-ruption of electric supply or inequitable supply of power. Section 22-B provides a remedy by way of bringing to the notice of the State Govt. necessity to issue proper directions to the R.S.E.B. If there is any dissatisfaction about the quality of service rendered by the R.S.E.B. Consumer Fora can also be approached for redressal. In such a situation grant of temporary injunction compelling the R.S.E.B. to discharge its duties as conceived by the plaintiffs is not the remedy. I therefore do not find any prima facie case in favour of grant of injunction and am of the view that the lower Courts have committed grave irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in granting such a temporary injunction. The revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Court and of the trial Court are set aside. Since the matter is pending for long, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.