PETITIONER:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
AJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. (PVT.) LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/02/1990
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II
CITATION:
1990 AIR 882 1990 SCR (2) 733
1990 SCC (2) 659 JT 1990 (2) 94
1990 SCALE (1)409
ACT:
Indian Electricity Act, 1910: Electricity Supply--Dis-
connection of--Service of notice a pre-requisite.
HEADNOTE:
The Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking disconnected
the supply of electricity to the respondent-company during
the pendency of the suit for a prohibitory injunction with-
out serving notice on the consumer. The trial court dis-
missed the amended suit for mandatory injunction to restore
the supply. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit on
the sole ground of non-service of notice as required under
condition No. 36 in regard to supply of electricity by the
appellant. It did not go into the allegation of theft of
electricity by the plaintiff. The High Court dismissed the
appeal.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, this Court,
HELD: 1. The licensee undertaking is performing a public
duty and is governed by a special statute. The law also
contemplates service of a notice before disconnection of
supply of electricity. The appellant cannot also be allowed
to go back upon its words and refuse the consumer the bene-
fit of notice as contemplated by the agreement. The suit
was, therefore, rightly decreed by the First Appellate
Court. [735B-C, A-B]
2. The plaintiff is seriously denying the allegation of
theft. It is not possible to assume the accusation as cor-
rect without a full-fledged trial on this issue. The courts
below have not examined the case on merits. The question
whether the allegations are true or not has to be examined
and decided in an appropriate proceeding. The appellant will
not, therefore, be prejudiced in its claim by dismissal of
the appeal. [734G-H, 735C]
Jagarnath Singh v.B.S. Ramaswamy, [1966] 1 SCR 885,
distinguished.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3693 of
1989.
734
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2. 1989 of Delhi
High Court in R.S.A. No. 31 of 1989.
K.S. Bindra, R.K. Maheshwari and G.S. Gujananip for the
Appellant.
Prem Sunder Jha for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a
suit filed by the respondent-company against the appellant,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for a mandatory injunction
to restore the supply of electricity discontinued during the
pendency of the suit. Initially the suit was filed for a
prohibitory injunction from disconnecting the electric
connection. The plaint was amended following stoppage of the
supply of energy.
2. According to the plaintiff’s case, the suit had to be
filed as the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking was
threatening disconnection without disclosing any reason.
Subsequently, some officers of the Undertaking made an
inspection of the meters and alleged theft of electricity
after tampering with the seals affixed on the meters. A
First Information Report was lodged with the police.
3. Admittedly no notice was served by the Delhi Elec-
tricity Supply Undertaking on the plaintiff before severing
the electric connection. The learned trial court, however,
dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appealed. The First
Additional District Judge, Delhi, who heard the appeal
decreed the suit on the sole ground of nonservice of notice
as required under condition no. 36 in regard to supply of
electricity by the appellant. The Delhi High Court dismissed
the appellant’s second appeal at the admission stage by a
reasoned judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended
that in view of the conduct of the plaintiff in stealing
electricity, the Court should in its discretion refuse to
issue a direction for restoration of the electric supply. We
are afraid, it is not possible to agree with the appellant
for more reasons than one. The plaintiff is seriously deny-
ing the allegation of theft and it is not possible to assume
the accusation as correct without a full-fledged trial on
this issue. The case of Jagarnath Singh v.B.S. Ramaswamy,
[1966] 1 SCR 885; relied upon on behalf of
735
the appellant is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the
consumer in that case was convicted under the Indian Penal
Code, and the conviction was being maintained in appeal.
Besides, the service of notice is a prerequisite for discon-
nection, and the appellant can not be allowed to go back
upon its words and refuse the consumer the benefit of notice
as contemplated by the agreement. The learned counsel for
the appellant urged that the Delhi Electric Supply Undertak-
ing will seriously suffer if this view is upheld. We do not
understand as to what is the difficulty in the way of the
appellant to serve a notice on the consumer before discon-
tinuing the supply. It has to be appreciated that the licen-
see Undertaking is performing a public duty and is governed
by a special statute and the law also contemplates service
of a notice before disconnection of supply of electricity.
The courts below have made it clear that they have not
examined the case on merits. The question whether, the
allegations of theft are true or not has to be examined and
decided in an appropriate proceeding, and the appellant will
not, therefore, be prejudiced by the present judgment in its
claim. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but, without
costs.
P.S.S. Appeal
dismissed.
736