ORDER
1. The respondent Fagwali Sao filed a representation before the appellant-TISCO Limited with request to restore his electrical connection in the shop premises. Such connection having not been granted, he moved the House Rent Controller under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for restoration of electrical connection registered as H.R.C. Case No, 18/91. It was allowed by the House Rent Controller but was set aside by the revisional Court. In this background, Fagwali Sao preferred the with petition in question impleading TISCO as one of the parties. The said writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 2408 of 1999 (R) was allowed in favour of respondent. Fagwali Sao (Writ petitioner) vide impugned order dated 14.02.2000. The present LPA arises out of the aforesaid case.
2. The only issue raised in this appeal is as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against TISCO Limited or not.
3. It was informed that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Indian Steel and Wire Products Limited, reported in LXXVI ILR 501, held that the TISCO performing statutory duty under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 is an authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Against the said decision, TISCO Limited has moved before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9287 of 2000. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 11th September, 2000 while stayed the operation of the judgment under challenged, made clear that the respondent of the said appeal shall be billed on the basis of judgment rendered by the High Court who shall also pay the charges.
4. As similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court, the present appeal and another LPA No. 496 of 1999 (R) were kept pending admission till the decision of the Supreme Court.
5. It appears that in the meantime, as no electrical connection has been given in the shop premises of writ petitioner-Fagwali Sao, he filed a petition in Rent Control Case No. 18 of 1991 wherein the authority directed the Telco to restore electrical connection in the shop in question. The I.A. No. 1148 of 2002 has been preferred by TISCO Limited to set aside such orders dated 5th February, 2002 and 9th May, 2002 passed by the rent controller.
6. The counsel for the writ petitioner-Fagwali Sao submitted that because of the pendency of the case, the shop is without any electrical connection since 2000. It was also pointed out that in the analogous LPA No. 496 of 1999 (R), interim order was passed on 26th July, 2000 with direction to TISCO Ltd, to provide electrical connection to the writ petitioner of the said case on payment of charges within a stipulated period.
7. Having regard to the facts the circumstances, while we stay the operation of the order dated 5th February, 2002 and 9th May, 2002 passed by Rent Controller, Jamshedpur in HRC case No. 18 of 1991, advice the TISCO Limited to act, in accordance with law.
8. If the appellant-TISCO Limited acts arbitrarily, not as per law, this Court may direct the State Electricity Board to take appropriate step against the Licencee Tisco Ltd.
9. The writ petitioner-Fagwali Sao is given liberty to approach the TISCO Limited for fresh electrical connection, which appellant-TISCO may consider.
10. In case of any arbitrary action on the part of the TISCO Limited, the writ petitioner-Fagwali Sao may ask for appropriate relief/ direction.
11. The IA No. 1148 of 2002 stands disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order be handed
over to Mr. Mittal, counsel for the TISCO
Limited.