IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8651 of 2003 Amrendra Kumar son of late Deo Nandan Sinha, a resident of House no. 108; Road No.2, Rajendra Nagar, P.S.- Kadam Kuan, District-Patna --- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna through its Secretary having office in Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-800001. 2. The Electrical Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, Mangles Road, Patna. 3. Electrical Superintending Engineer, P.E.S.U.(East), Ashok Rajpath, Patna. 4. Electrical Executive Engineer, P.E.S.U. (East) Rajendra Nagar, Patna. 5. Electrical Assistant Engineer (Supply) P.E.S.U. Rajendra Nagar, Patna --- Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. A.B.Ojha, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh with Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocates. 11/ 12-01-2011 Heard the parties. 2. This unfortunate dispute between the mother and son with respect to electrical consumption has been sought to be raised in the present proceeding filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is admitted case of the parties that one Deonandan Sinha was the father of the petitioner. One Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha, wife of aforesaid Deonandan Sinha, is own mother, according to the claim made by the petitioner, whereas she is step- mother, according to the claim of the respondent- Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). A Building, situate at Road No.2, Rajendra Nagar in the township of Patna, was originally belonging to 2 aforesaid Deonandan Sinha (now dead). For supply of electricity in the said building, six domestic connections were given by the respondent- Board, all in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha. Subsequently, it appears that there was some dispute between the wife and husband and, therefore, out of six domestic connections, 3 domestic connections, namely, Accounts No. 50060/ 32708103, 38438/32708101 and 99424/32708105, were under the use of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha and remaining three domestic connections, namely, Accounts No. 34557/32708100, 41200/32708102 and66210/32708104 remained under the use of late Deonandan Sinha for supply of electricity in the ground floor of the building. 3. Subsequently, it appears that two meters installed in the ground floor were found removed from the premises some time in the year 1993 and, therefore, dues against the aforesaid two meters, namely, 41200/32708102 and 66210/32708104 were transferred to Account No. 34557/32708100, which were under the use of Sri Deonandan Sinha, who is now deceased. Late Deonandan Sinha came up before this Court and had filed C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 1997 raising his grievances that dues standing with respect to two removed meters cannot be legally tagged with Account no. 34557 under his use. A Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 04.11. 3 1997 (Annexure-1) disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, East Circle, Patna Electrical Supply Undertaking, to take final decision with respect to dispute raised by aforesaid Deonandan Sinha with respect to tagging the electricity dues with respect to two removed electrical connection with that of electrical connection of Account no. 34557 under the use of the writ petitioner of that case. 4. It appears that in the light of the observation/direction issued by this Court by virtue of the order dated 04.11.1997 (Annexure-1), when the matter was still under consideration before the Electrical Superintending Engineer, fresh bills were raised with respect to Account No. 34557, wherein dues with respect to two removed meters were also tagged. In the meantime, late Deonandan Sinha is said to have died leaving behind him his legal heirs including the petitioner and his widow, Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha. 5. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2003 praying therein that the respondent- authorities may be directed to raise proper electricity bills with respect to meter No. 34557 as per the directions issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 1997. Petitioner also prayed for quashing of certain electrical bills raised against Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha with respect to 4 meter No. 34557. When this matter was taken up for the first time on 26.08. 2003 by a Bench of this Court, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- within a fortnight and was also directed to make payment of current bills, where-after Respondent-Board was directed not to disconnect electrical line with respect to meter No. 34557. 6. From the pleadings available on record, it is apparent that in the year 2003 all the six domestic connections for the building in question were still standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha and not in the name of the writ petitioner. The deposit of Rs. 20,000/- made by the petitioner, in compliance of order dated 26.08.2003, was made with respect to domestic connection of Account No. 34557 standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha. Even current bills in compliance of the order of this Court were deposited allegedly by the petitioner with respect to domestic connections standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha. 7. Respondent Electrical Superintending Engineer, in view of the remand made by this Court by order dated 04.11.1997 (Annexure-1), passed his final order on 06.06.2005, which was communicated to the petitioner as also Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha by letter dated 13.06.2005, brought on record as Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The 5 respondent- Electrical Superintending Engineer has resolved the issue in the following terms, which are being quoted herein below:- “When the partition took place, Mrs. Chandra Kanti Sinha was supposed to move to Electricity Board for disconnection of the meters which were not in her use after partition but on the other hand allowed Late D.N.Sinha to utilize the power from the remaining meters of the portion under occupation by Late D.N.Sinha. When the two service connections and meters are found removed in unauthorized way by either of the two parties, board is bound to transfer the dues of missing meters on existing meters and in possession of Mrs. Chandra Kanti Sinha. Electrical Executive Engineer Rajendra Nagar is being directed to transfer the corrected dues amount accordingly.” 8. According to the findings recorded by the respondent- Electrical Superintending Engineer, the dues with respect to two missing meters are required to be transferred against the existing domestic connections/ meters standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha. 9. Now, the only grievance of the petitioner is that Rs. 20,000/-, deposited by him in compliance of order dated 26.08.2003 passed by this Court, be directed to be refunded by the Respondent- Board to the petitioner with admissible interest thereupon. The controversy is now confined only with respect to refund of this amount as 6 claimed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision arrived at by respondent Electrical Superintending Engineer, he is entitled for refund of the amount and the entire action of the respondent- Board in not refunding the same is wholly unjustified. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent- Board has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner deposited the money in compliance of order dated 26.08.2003 with respect to Account No. 34557, which was still standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha. There was huge amount standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha, with respect to different meters/accounts including A/C No. 34557. Thus the Board adjusted the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/- against the bills standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha. In his submission the order was passed by respondent Electrical Superintending Engineer in the year 2005 and prior to that, adjustment had already been made. Therefore, there is absolutely no question of refunding the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/-. 11. After having heard the parties at length and after perusing the materials available on record, this Court finds that all the six meters were standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha till the year 2005, when the 7 order was passed by respondent- Electrical Superintending Engineer on 06.06.2005. Therefore, if any amount was due against Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha and any money was paid either by Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha or any other person including the petitioner, then that amount was required to be adjusted by the respondent-Board against the electrical dues standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha. The writ petitioner has not been able to show by any document that as a matter of fact, the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/- was not adjusted by the respondent- Board against the bills standing in the name of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha prior to order dated 06.06.2005. The petitioner has also not been able to show that an amount of Rs. 20, 000/- was separately paid by Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha, after order dated 06.06.2005. Admittedly, the petitioner had deposited the money in the account of Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha, who, as per the petitioner himself, is none else but his own mother. Respondent- Board could not have decided the internal arrangement made by the petitioner or his mother to use of domestic connections in the building in question. Admittedly the petitioner had got no separate connection in his own name till 06.06.2005, when bills raised against Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha with respect to all the six connections were required to be paid and were required to be treated as the payment made by 8 Smt. Chandrakanti Sinha. 12. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)