MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. AJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. (PVT.) LTD.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Laut Mohan Sharma
V. Ramaswami
Judgment Date: 1990-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; the suit decreed by the First Appellate Court is upheld; the disconnection without prior notice is impermissible, and restoration should be granted; no costs awarded.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Respondents

Ajanta Iron & Steel Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.S. Bindra
• R.K. Maheshwari
• G.S. Gujananip

Counsels for Respondents

• Prem Sunder Jha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision concerns the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking’s disconnection of power to the respondent during the pendency of a suit for a prohibitory injunction. The plaintiff’s amended suit sought a mandatory injunction to restore supply after the Undertaking disconnected energy, and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit solely on the ground that no notice was served, as required by condition No. 36 governing electricity supply agreements. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the licensee Undertaking is performing a public duty under a special statute and, as a matter of law, notice must be served before disconnection of electricity. The Court admonished that the Undertaking cannot repudiate its commitment to provide notice. It also noted that the plaintiff vehemently denied the theft allegations and that such claims require a full trial to determine their veracity, which should occur in an appropriate proceeding, so as not to prejudice the appellant. The judgment distinguishes Jagarnath Singh v. B. S. Ramaswamy, [1966] 1 SCR 885, and clarifies that the mere allegation of theft cannot justify withholding statutory notice. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, the suit was rightly decreed by the First Appellate Court, and the decision is without costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Electricity ActCondition No. 36 (service of notice before disconnection)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Public duty of a licensee Undertaking; requirement of notice before disconnection as contemplated by law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that despite theft allegations by the Undertaking, the court should not order restoration of electricity because the consumer’s conduct warrants denial of relief. However, it is argued that service of notice before disconnection is a prerequisite under the agreement and law, and the matter should be decided on merits in an appropriate proceeding; the notice cannot be withheld as a matter of convenience, and the public-duty role of the Undertaking mandates compliance with notice requirements.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the theft allegations justify withholding restoration and that the court should exercise discretion to resist restoration when such misconduct is alleged by the consumer. They argue that notice is a necessary formality and that its omission prejudices the consumer’s rights; however, the court’s focus remains on whether notice was properly served and on merits of alleged theft.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jagarnath Singh v. B. S. Ramaswamy	[1966] 1 SCR 885	Distinguished	The Court distinguishes this case on the facts, noting it is inapplicable because, unlike the present case, the consumer in Jagarnath Singh was convicted under IPC and the conviction was being maintained; theft allegations require independent adjudication.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI _v._ AJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. (PVT.) LTD. FEBRUARY 28, 1990 A [LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) B _Indian Electricity Act,_ _IYW:_ _Electricity Supply-Disconnection_ _of-Service of notice a pre-requisite._ The Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking disconnected the supply ### of electricity to the respondent-company during the pendency of the suit C for a prohibitory injunction without serving notice on the consumer. The trial court dismissed 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 D 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 E service · of a notice before disconnection of supply of electricity. The appellant cannot also be allowed to go back npon its words and refuse the consumer the benefit of notice as contemplated by the agreement. The suit was, therefore, rightly decreed by the First Appellate Court. [735B-C, A-BJ . 2. The plaintiff is seriously denying the allegation of theft. It is not possible to assume the accusation as correct without a full-fledged· trial on this issue. The courts below have not examined the case on merits. The question whether the allegations are triie 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, 735Cf _Jagarnath Singh_ v. _B. S._ _Ramaswamy,_ [1966) I SCR 885, distinguished. F G ' ### CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3693 fl of 1989. 733 A 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] _1_ S.C.R. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.1989 of Delhi High Court in R.S.A. No. 31of1989. K.S. Bindra, R.K. Maheshwari and G.S. Gujananip for the Appellant. **B** Prem Sunder Jha for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by # c D **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.ofthe 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 oJ electricity after tampering with the seals affixed on the meters. A First Information Report was lodged with the police. E 3. Admittedly no notice was served by the Delhi Electricity 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 non### f service 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 G 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 denying 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_ ### H SinKh v. B.S. Ramaswamy, [1966] 1SCR885; relied upon on behalf of l M.C.D. _v._ AJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. [SHARMA. J.[ 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 disconnection, 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 Undertaking 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 discontinuing the supply. It has to be appreciated that the licensee Undertaking is performing a public duty and is governed by a special statute and the Iaw 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 bas 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. A B ## c ### y I