WATER ARID POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus UMAID KHAN

This revision petition has arisen from a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners praying for a decree for declaration to the effect that demand of Rs.14,933.69 by the petitioners from the respondent was illegal, void against law and did not effect the rights of. the respondent and was liable to be cancelled and as a consequential relief praying for decree and permanent injunction restraining the petitioners permanently from disconnecting the electricity connection. The learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 13‑1‑1986, decreed the suit which was assailed in appeal by the petitioners before the lower appellate Court which has also been dismissed by judgment, dated 28‑2‑1987 which has been challenged in this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the revision petition contended that the respondent applied for electricity connection for his tube‑well on 26‑3‑1980 which required supply of material at the cost of the respondent which was to be used in giving such a connection and it was evaluated at an amount of Rs.41,330 and accordingly a demand notice was issued to the respondent who paid the said amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the connection itself was given in 1981 and in the meantime the prices of the material had gone up therefore, on the basis of audit report the material of the amount of more than Rs.56,000 was utilized therefore, deducting the said amount of Rs.41,330 the disputed amount of Rs.14,933.69 was required to be deposited by the respondent which was permitted under the law and the Courts below could not have passed decree in favour of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to section 54‑A of the Electricity Act to support his contention that the said section provides that any sum due and outstanding against a consumer notwithstanding anything contained in any law instrument or contract could be recovered as arrears of land revenue, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to question the demand on the ground that there was no such agreement between the parties that the respondent would pay the enhanced amount if the cost of the material happened to go up.

3. I have considered the arguments and find no substance in it. Admittedly, the demand notice which was initially issued evaluated the cost of the material which was to be supplied to the respondent to be used in giving electricity connection to him at Rs.41,330 and it is not denied that there was no reservation of such a right with the petitioners that the said amount could be enhanced unilaterally or on account of enhancement ~in the price of the material. The issuance of the said demand and acceptance by the respondent and acceptance of the said amount by the petitioners had brought into existence a concluded contact simpliciter between the parties for sale and purchase of material and if petitioners were at fault in not giving connection immediately and waited till 1987 it was they who were at fault and should suffer and not the respondent. Reliance on section 54‑A of Electricity Act is wholly misplaced inasmuch as according to the terms of this section itself only that amount was recoverable as arrears of land revenue which was outstanding against and due from the consumer. Since the respondent was pleading that the said amount was neither due from him nor was outstanding against him, therefore, could not have been recovered at all. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the petitioners were required to recover the said amount on account of Audit report, therefore, the respondent` could not object to the same. I am afraid this contention equally has no force. Audit affair is a matter which is between the petitioners and the Audit Department and any audit report could not make the respondent liable for any amount and could not bring about any agreement between the petitioners and the respondent making respondent liable to pay the said amount. The two Courts below have rightly recorded finding of fact that there was no agreement between the parties that the respondent would be liable to pay the price of the material on account of enhancement in its price. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly contended that section 54‑A of the Electricity Act referred to above, is operative notwithstanding anything in the agreement, therefore, even if there was no such clause in the agreement. the sum could still be recovered. This contention is also without any force. Section 54‑A would be attracted only if in the first instance an amount is itself due from a consumer or outstanding against him there and then alone the question of recovery would arise and it is the motive of recovery which has been prescribed by this section and not that the amount itself becomes due by operation of section 54‑A itself. The view taken by the two Courts below is perfectly in accordance with law which I also fully endorse and the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade me that the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decree have acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of their jurisdiction. It has not been argued that evidence has either been misread or misconstrued. It has also not been argued that any piece of evidence or other material present on the record has been ignored. No case has been made out for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under section 115, C.P.C. The revision petition thus fails, which is hereby dismissed in limine.

H . B . T . /W‑19/L Petition dismissed