IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11187 of 2005 ASHOK KUMAR Son of Late Ram Kishore Sharma, Resident of Village-Kadamkuan, P.S.-Kadamkuan, in the District of Patna. ................Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Chairman, Electricity Board, Patna. 3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. ........Respondents. ----------- 5/ 22.02.2011 Heard the parties. 2. With the consent of the parties instead of I.A. No. 805 of 2011, the main writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is itself taken up for its final disposal. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer for setting aside an order dated 08.08.2005 (Annexure 3) issued by the Assistant Electrical Engineer (Revenue), Patna, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for change of name with respect to electrical Connection No. 13-19908001/317 52 D/s has been refused primarily on the ground that some outstanding dues are still there against Mrs. Sarswati Prasad with respect to two other electrical connections for the same premises. 4. It is admitted case of the parties that for premises in question, the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and its 2 officials had given three electrical connections, namely, (i) Co. No.13-19908001/31752 D/S, (ii) Co. No.13- 19908000/16889 NDSII and (iii) Co. No. 13- 19907901/31751 D/S all in the name of one Mrs. Sarswati Prasad. The petitioner claims to have purchased the premises in question by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 27.12.2001 (Annexure 2). Subsequently, the prayer was made that the electrical connection given in the name of Mrs. Sarswati Prasad may be changed and be given in the name of present petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far electrical connection bearing no. 31752 D/S is concerned, the petitioner has been consuming the electricity since the date of purchase and up to date payment has been made by him. Therefore, the Assistant Electrical Engineer (Revenue) was not justified in passing the impugned order refusing to change the name of the petitioner with respect to that electrical connection. However, a dispute has been raised with respect to consumption of electricity, so far electrical connection bearing no. 16889 NDSII is concerned. According to the petitioner, he could not come in possession over that portion of premises in question for which 3 electricity supply was being made through the aforesaid electricity connection no. 16889 NDSII. It is submitted that said portion of premises was under occupation of one Ajit Kumar, nephew of Mrs. Sarswati Prasad and he remained in occupation till 05.12.2005. Therefore, till that date the petitioner cannot be held liable for making payment of electricity dues. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-Board. Paragraphs 4 and 7 of that counter affidavit would be relevant and are reproduced hereinbelow: “4. That in reply to paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition, it is relevant to mention that the change of name/providing new connection has been denied to the petitioner since there was dues of Rs.1,29,252.76 upto July 2005 in the running electric connection in A/c No. 16889 ND/S and Rs.64,869.14 in A/c No.31751 D/S which has been disconnected on 06.12.1996. 7. That in reply to paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner himself has stated in the writ petition that he purchased the premises on 27.12.2001 and ever since the date of purchase he is in occupation of the same. The petitioner since the date of purchase has consumed the electricity but the bill has not been paid by him which is further established from the statement of billing profile and as per report dated 05.02.2011 of the J.E.E. of A/C No. 16889.” 4 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that dispute raised on behalf of the petitioner with respect to Electrical Connection No. 16889 NDSII has to be resolved by some competent authority, as according to the respondents, the petitioner came in possession since the date of purchase itself and has consumed the electricity with respect to that electrical connection also. 8. After hearing the parties at length and on examination of their pleadings, this Court comes to the following conclusions:- 8.1) The petitioner purchased the premises in question on 27.12.2001. 8.2) All the three electrical connections referred to above were/are standing in the name of Mrs. Sarswati Prasad, who entered into a contract with Bihar State Electricity Board for supply of electricity. 8.3) The petitioner claims to have consumed the electricity with respect to electrical connection bearing no. 31752 D/S and claims to be making regular payment of electricity dues with respect to 5 that connection. 8.4) The petitioner shall be obliged to make payment regularly and shall not be permitted to raise any dispute regarding that electrical connection bearing No.31752 D/S. 8.5) Electrical connection no. 3175I D/S was disconnected as far back as on 06.12.1996. Therefore, the Bihar State Electricity Board and its officials cannot claim the payment of any dues with respect to that electrical connection from the petitioner. The prayer for change of name of the petitioner even with respect to that electrical connection cannot be refused by the Bihar State Electricity Board and its officials on the ground of certain outstanding dues against the previous allottee with respect to that connection. 9. The petitioner must raise a dispute by filing a proper petition before the prescribed authority constituted under Section 42 (5) or (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short Act) raising his grievances with respect to outstanding dues of electrical connection bearing no. 16889NDSII. As per admission of the petitioner, he has been using electricity 6 from that electrical connection also with effect from 06.12.2005, though according to the respondents he has been using electricity since the date of purchase on 27.12.2001 itself. According to the respondents, the outstanding dues with respect to that electrical connection would be around Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs). 10. In view of nature of controversy regarding electrical connection no. 16889 NDSII and in view of the fact the dispute has to be adjudicated by a competent authority under the Act, the petitioner is directed to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) for the present within a period of three months from today in two equal installments. First installment of Rs.50,000/- must be paid within one and half month and second installment of Rs.50,000/- must be paid within a period of one and half month thereafter, but must be paid within three months from today. 11. In view of the fact that the dispute is regarding only one electrical connection no. 16889 NDSII, the respondents are not justified in refusing to change the name of the petitioner with respect to other electrical connections. Admittedly, there is no outstanding dues regarding electrical connection no. 31752 D/s 7 12. In that view of the matter, order contained in Annexure 3 is hereby set aside. The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Revenue) or any other competent authority of the Bihar State Electricity Board shall be oblige to pass order for change of name with respect to electrical connection no. 31752 D/s within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order on fulfillment of other conditions as required under law by the petitioner. 13. So far electrical connection no. 16889 NDSII is concerned, if the petitioner makes payment of rupees one lac, as indicated above, within the time prescribed by this Court and keeps on making payment of the current electrical dues, then authority shall not disconnect the electrical connection. The petitioner must raise his grievances before the prescribed authority, as referred to above, within a period of one month with respect to electrical connection no. 16889 NDSII. If such a representation is filed, then the prescribed authority shall be obliged to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of six months. 14. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not file a representation before the prescribed authority within a 8 period of one month with respect to electrical connection no. 16889 NDSII and does not deposit the amount as indicated earlier within the time prescribed by this Court, then it would be construed that the present writ petition stood finally rejected by this Court. 15. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application is allowed. No costs. Anjani ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )