CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. versus SH. N.M. BANKA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 21-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
,.. -
CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. 
A 
v. 
SH. N.M. BANKA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.) 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 226-Writ petition-Filed without availing 
statutory 
remedy-Maintainability-Partnership finn being defaulter in payment of C 
electJicity charges-Supply of electricity disconnected-One of the partner 
individually applying for separate meter for the same premises-Corporation 
on coming to know the mischief infonned the individual member that supply 
of electJicity to him has been kept in abeyance--Partnership [inn and the 
member filing writ petition for direction to Corporation not to disconnect 
supply of electricity as also to refer disputed Bills to arbitrator-Held, this is D 
a case of gross abuse of process of cou~Writ petitioners did not avail of 
statutory remedy provided under sub-sections(4) and (6) of s.26 of Electricity 
Act but approached the Court for interim relief and by this process managed 
to continue to get supply of electJicity even though there was a huge mounting 
default-Under writ jurisdiction Court could not have decided about the 
co"ectness or otherwise of the bills-If the consumer was aggrieved he should E 
have approached the Electric Inspectoi-Court should have declined to inter-
vene in the matter and should have directed I.he consumer to avail of 
statutory remedy-High Court should not have allowed the question of dis-
puted bills to linger on for more than five years without disposing of the case 
on merits-!t was also not proper for the Court to direct CESC to supply F 
electJicity to defaulter [um by interim orders from time to time-Specific 
statutory remedy to the consumer should not have been allowed to be 
bypassed:ElectJicity Act,19J()-S26(4) and (6). 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14421 of 
1996. 
(j 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.92 of the Calcutta High 
Court in Appeal No. Nil/91. 
P.P. Rao, Raj Kumar Gupta, H.P. Sharma and Rajesh for the Ap-
pellant. 
H 
23 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh and S.B. Sanyal, A.N. Dawn, Tapash Banerjee, 
S. Dutta and B.K. Satija for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The following order in this case was passed by us on 6th November, 
B 1996: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"While we propose to give reasons for our Order later, the following 
is the operative and final Order in the Special Leave Petition : 
Leave granted. 
The appeal is allowed with the following directions: 
(1) Within one month from today, Respondent No.1 - consumer 
shall deposit a sum of Rupees thirty lakhs towards the demand of 
arrears by the appellant-company against him. 
(2) On such deposit being made, the dispute between the parties 
involved in the Transferred case No. 42 of 1996 shall stand referred 
to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Calcutta who shall decide the 
same within two months from the date the dispute is referred to 
him. 
(3) If the amount specified in Direction No.1 is not deposited, it 
shall be open to the appellant-company to recover the arrears due 
to it according to law. 
(4) Pending further orders in the matter, all the properties of the 
respondent are attached herewith. 
(5) Respondent No. 1 shall pay the costs of the appellant which 
are estimated at Rupees fifty thousand only. 
G 
The reasons for passing the aforesaid order are as under : 
This is a case of gross abuse of process of court. One N.M. Banka 
had applied to CESC Limited which carries on business of generation, 
supply and distribution of electricity in Calcutta and its suburbs for a 
connection of electricity to premises No.11, U.N. Mukherjee Road, Calcut-
H 
ta. After completion of inspection, the CESC agreed to supply electricity 
. '( -
-
- -. 
C.E.S.CORPN.LID.v.NM.BANKA 
25 
to N.M. Banka by letter dated 5th February,1988 subject to compliance of A 
usual conditions. Some time later, it came to the knowledge of CESC that 
N.M. Banka was a partner of the firm M/s. Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing 
Works which was carrying on business at the same premises. The partner-
ship firm was an existing registered consumer from whom a very substantial 
sum of money was lying due. Moreover, the partnership firm was found 
drawing electricity far in excess of the sanctioned load 50 H.P. On coming 
to know that N.M. Banka was a partner of Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing 
Works, which was a defaulter in payment of electricity charges, the CESC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.