Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.@mdashBy means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
a. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure 9) to the writ petition.
b. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Corporation to provide the electricity connection to the petitioner to run the private Pump set of 7.5 H.P. + 120 Watt within a specific period, so that justice may be done.
c. issue any suitable order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, so that justice may be done.
d. award the cost of the writ petition.
Facts of the Case
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is an agriculturist having 8 Bigha agricultural land in the village Jafarpur Malawan, Pargana Karkari, Tehsil Manjhanpur, district Kaushambi. With a view to improve his agricultural land, the petitioner got constructed a bore well and to install a private pumping set of 7.5 H.P. he applied to Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kaushambi for electricity connection under General/Normal Scheme annexing therewith a boring certificate issued by Assistant Engineer (Minor Irrigation), Kaushambi dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure 2). It appears that pursuant to the application of the petitioner for electric connection, a report dated 31.1.2011 was submitted by the respondent authorities alongwith a line chart (Annexure SCA-1) and estimate of cost of 11 KV line in two parts, namely, transmission and transformation (Annexure SCA-2). Thereafter the Executive Engineer granted the approval and issued an order dated 19.2.2011 (Annexure SCA-3) for electric connection which was followed by the Line Order/Work Order dated 20.6.2011 (Annexure SCA-4).
2. Despite deposit of a sum of Rs. 14,175/- by the petitioner on 21.2.2011 pursuant to the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 19.2.2011 and issuance of Line Order/Work Order dated 20.6.2011 (Annexure SCA-4), the electric connection was not given to the petitioner and as such the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 9993 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.2.2012 (Annexure 6) observing that representation of the petitioner be decided within six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the respondent No. 2. It appears that the petitioner has filed a certified copy of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 24.2.2012 vide letter dated 2.3.2012 (Annexure 7) before the respondent No. 2. The petitioner also moved a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1860 of 2012 which was rejected by this Court on 27.2.2013 by the following order:
This contempt petition has been filed with the allegation that despite an order dated 24.2.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 9993 of 2012, the opposite parties have not taken a decision.
The issue between the parties was with regard to grant of electricity connection and the writ Court directed the opposite parties to consider his representation. In pursuance thereof, the order has been passed on 18.10.2012 stating that the applicant has not performed his part of the obligation under the scheme and, therefore, the line cannot be energized and accordingly his representation has been decided.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that erection of the transmission line is obligation of the opposite party but this fact is contested on the ground that under the scheme in which the applicant has applied the liability is of the consumer. This is a question of fact which needs adjudication and this exercise cannot be undertaken in contempt jurisdiction and the applicant can approach before appropriate forum.
However, since there is substantial compliance of the writ order, notices are discharged. Contempt petition is rejected and consigned to record.
3. Now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 18.10.2012 (Annexure 9) which has been passed by the respondent No. 2 observing that it was the obligation of the petitioner under the orders dated 19.2.2011 and 20.6.2011 to construct the line from the materials already provided by the respondent to him which has not been done so far and as such the construction of line be completed and be intimated to the S.D.O. (IInd), Manjhanpur so that energisation may be done.
4. We have heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
Submissions of the petitioner
5. Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the report prepared by the concerned authorities and approved by the Executive Engineer alongwith the line chart, the total length of line is 315 meters and estimate for laying the line has been sanctioned for Rs. 1,44,377/- under the Normal Scheme. Out of this amount Rs. 1,32,602/- is chargeable to the respondent-corporation and Rs. 11,775/- is chargeable to the petitioner. As per line chart, a sum of Rs. 11,775/- consists the cost of line of 15 meters at Rs. 2,250/-, fixed charges Rs. 2,000/-, system loading charges Rs. 1,800/-, Electric meter Rs. 5,725/-. He further submits that the breakup of charges to corporation of Rs. 1,32,602/- is given in the line chart as cost of 11 KV line in two heads, namely, transmission Rs. 56,863/- and transformation of Rs. 75,739/-. The attention of the Court was drawn to the details of items under the heads of transmission and transformation as given in Annexure SCA-2 which consist of the cost of various items, concreting of pole, carriage and erection charges etc. He submits that as per circular of the corporation dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure SCA-1A), no line charges can be charged from the consumer for line up to 300 meters from HT/LT main. He further submits that as per report dated 31.1.2011, line chart and the details of transmission and transformation cost estimate, the provision for concreting of pole etc. and carriage, erection/over head charges have already been made in the estimate and thereafter the charges to the consumer has been determined at Rs. 11,775/- and the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 14,175/-(charge to consumer Rs. 11,775/- + Rs. 2,400/- security charge). He further submits that the construction of line can be done only by the respondent-corporation and as such they are bound to construct the line and to give connection to the petitioner to run his private tube-well.
Submissions on behalf of Respondents
6. Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that as per order dated 19.2.2011 followed by the Line Order/Work Order dated 20.6.2011, it is the obligation of the petitioner (consumer) to construct the line from the materials provided by the corporation. He draws the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the counter-affidavit to contend that a sum of Rs. 14,175/- deposited by the petitioner does not include expenses on carriage of material from store and erection of line and over head charges, however it includes the cost of line in excess of 300 meters. The paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the short counter-affidavit are reproduced below:
5. That the petitioner applied for electricity connection to run the tube-well of 7.5 H.P. His application was processed and report alongwith line chart was prepared by the Junior Engineer showing distance of 315 meters from the premises of the applicant to 11 KV H.T. Line with an estimate of Rs. 1,44,377/-. The report of Junior Engineer dated 31.1.2011 is annexed with this affidavit and is marked as Annexure SCA-1.
6. That in pursuance to report dated 31.1.2011 the petitioner had to deposit Rs. 1,44,377/- for electricity connection and in such an event the entire work had to be carried out by the department. Since the petitioner was not able to take the electricity connection by depositing the estimated cost and he shown his willingness to obtain the benefit of normal scheme under which the petitioner was entitled for heavy subsidies provided by the State Government. According to this scheme all necessary materials including the transformer of 25 KVA, PCC pole with stone pad, etc. are provided to consumers from the department with the condition to construct the electricity line through his own labour as per line chart prepared by the Junior Engineer under the supervision of the departmental staff and finally the consumer will provide a cable to the department and that cable shall be attached from L.T. Side of the transformer to the input supply point of the motor through which the consumer will run tube-well, the work of energisation the electricity line shall be performed by the departmental staff but earlier to this, the consumer will construct the complete line from the materials provided to him under this scheme under the supervision of departmental staff of the concerning division.
7. That the estimate prepared after the inspection and line chart are in two parts. The first part of the estimate deals with the transmission from 11 KV line and for this purpose all necessary poles and other materials are provided to the consumers free of cost from the subsidy provided by the State Government. The second part of the estimate deals with the transformation, under this estimate the entire materials including 25 KVA transformer with materials are provided to consumer free of cost, as per scheme.
8. That the aforesaid policy is provided to consumers on first come first serve basis hence as per instructions issued by the State Government the materials are provided to consumers on the basis of determination of the seniority fixed, after the consumer deposits the amount mentioned in terms and conditions which includes cost of line in excess of 300 meters, system loading charges, meter charge, security charge and processing fee. Copy of the circulars dated 31.8.2010 and 30.6.2011 are jointly annexed with this affidavit and are marked as Annexure SCA-1A.
9. That as per instructions issued by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission under the Cost Data Book for recovery of expenses and other charges from prospective consumers for taking electrisk ballast, sand, cement) and labour shall be provided by the consumer for the PTW (private tube-well) connection. However, actual requirement of material, etc. shall be communicated by the licensee to the consumer while offering terms and conditions for PTW (private tube-well) connection. It further provides that any subsidy for PTW (private tube-well) consumer in respect of new connection shall be deducted from line charge.
11. That the terms and conditions finalised on 19.2.2011 clearly indicates an amount of Rs. 14,175/- to be deposited by the petitioner which does not include any carriage of material from store and erection of line plus over head charges which is shown in both the estimates as Rs. 15,121/- and Rs. 15,725/- applicable under the complete deposit scheme by the consumers and in present case under which the materials are provided to consumers by the department free of cost. The carriage and erection plus over head charges are mentioned for the purpose of preparation of the estimate, if a consumer obtains a connection under the full deposit scheme and does not take benefit of normal scheme. True copy of the terms and conditions dated 19.2.2011 which indicates an amount of Rs. 14,175/- to be deposited by the petitioner with certain other conditions is annexed with this affidavit and is marked as Annexure SCA-3.
Our Findings
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only dispute involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner should construct the electric line of 315 meters from the materials provided by the respondent or the respondent corporation itself should construct the line.
8. From the perusal of the report dated 31.1.2011, line chart and the estimate of transmission and transformation, it is evident that the total estimate for construction of line was sanctioned for Rs. 1,44,377/- chargeable as under:
9. As per circular dated 31.8.2010 (SCA-1A) issued by the Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., no line charges would be realised from the tube-well consumer up to 300 meters distance. In paragraph 8 of the short counter-affidavit, the respondents have themselves stated that materials are provided to the consumer after depositing the amount mentioned in terms and conditions which includes cost of line in excess of 300 meters. It undisputed that the petitioner has deposited the required amount pursuant to the order dated 19.2.2011. The circular clearly shows that for laying the line up to 300 meters nothing is chargeable from the petitioner who is seeking electric connection for tube-well. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,32,602/-, chargeable to the respondent-corporation as per their own line chart and report dated 31.1.2011 bearing sanction order; consist of the transmission cost of Rs. 56,863/- and transformation cost of Rs. 75,739/- (Annexure SCA-2). We find that the transmission charges include cost of various materials and expenses of concreting of pole, concreting of stay, earthing complete and carriage and erection+overhead charges. Likewise transformation charges of Rs. 75,739/- include cost of various materials and expenses of concreting of pole, concreting of stay, earthing complete and carriage and erection + overhead charges. Thus, as per own documents filed by the respondent-corporation, it is evident that the sanctioned estimate includes the expenses of construction of line. The entire amount chargeable to the petitioner as per sanction order has been paid by the petitioner. The rest of the amount of the sanctioned estimate is chargeable to the respondent-corporation under the scheme itself.
10. Since as per circular of the respondent-corporation dated 31.8.2010, nothing is to be charged from the tube-well consumer for laying the electric line up to 300 meters and also since for rest of 15 meters, the respondent-corporation has charged a sum of Rs. 2,250/- towards cost of line as evident from line chart and the report and they have also made provision of carriage and erection of 315 meters line as per estimates of transmission and transformation which has been made chargeable to the corporation as per approved report dated 31.1.2011 and as such the stand of the respondents that the petitioner should construct the whole electric line of 315 meters from the materials provided by the corporation, does not appears to be correct and justified. The maximum which the respondents could have required the petitioner to pay could be that the petitioner should bear the cost of construction of line beyond 300 meters. However, in this regard, we find that as per line chart and approved report containing sanction of the estimate, a sum of Rs. 11,775/- has been made chargeable to the consumer (petitioner) which includes Rs. 2,250/- towards cost of 15 meters line @ 150 per meter which is mentioned as cost of line in the order 19.2.2011. A sum of Rs. 11,775/- alongwith security of Rs. 2,400/- total Rs. 14,175/- has been deposited by the petitioner on 21.2.2011 which is undisputed. Under the circumstances it appears to be not justifiable for the respondent-corporation to require the petitioner to construct the line from the materials provided by the corporation.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that as per order dated 19.2.2011 (Annexure 3) the petitioner was to enter into agreement and thereafter he has to construct the line from the materials provided by the corporation and as per Line Order/Work Order dated 20.6.2011 also the line is to be constructed by the petitioner. We find that the order dated 19.2.2011 and Line Order/Work Order dated 20.6.2011 are on printed proforma and as such it has to be read harmoniously with the description/calculation of charges given therein, the contents of sanctioned estimate under the normal scheme and the circular of the Managing Director dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure SCA-1A) which we have already discussed in preceding paragraphs. This circular is wholly undisputed rather it has been referred and relied by the respondents in paragraph 8 of the short counter-affidavit contending that consumer is to deposit the amount mentioned in the terms and conditions which includes cost of line in excess of 300 meter, system loading charges, meter charge, security charge and processing fee. It is also evident from the report dated 31.1.2011, line chart and the order dated 19.2.2011 that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,250/- towards cost of line of 15 meters i.e. beyond 300 meters. Thus there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents.
12. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 18.10.2012 (Annexure 9) is wholly unjustified and is accordingly set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to construct the line expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him by the petitioner. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
