MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHIversusAJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. (PVT.) LTD.

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

                        FEBRUARY 28, 1990

   [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       .-
                                                                             F
      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              G
the appeal. [734G-H, 735Cf

      Jagarnath Singh v. B. S. Ramaswamy, [1966) I SCR 885,
distinguished.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3693                    fl
of 1989.
                          733
    734                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1990] 1 S.C.R.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.1989 of Delhi High
A   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

          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
c   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.

D         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-              l
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
              M.C.D. v. AJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. [SHARMA. J.[            735

    the appellant is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the consumer in       A
    that case was convicted under the Indian Penal Code, and the convic-
    tion 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        B
    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   c
    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.




y
I