DILIP SHIVHARE Vs. M.P.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions are involved in all these three petitions pertaining to refusal of the respondent Board to grant electricity connection on the petitioner's premises, all these cases are being heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) THE facts of the cases are as under:

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid contentions and placing reliance on clause 22 -A of the General Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity, Shri Jain argues that once the premises is transferred, the Board can always refuse to restore the electricity connection to the premises, in case there are dues against the owner of the premises. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Dhingra and another v. M.P.E.B. Jabalpur, : : 1990 IPJR 80 = 1990 MPLJ 48 and Isha Marbels V. Bihar State Electricity Board and another,, 1995 II SCC 648 and the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Amit Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Chief Engineer, (O and M) Circle and another, : 2005 7 SCC 393. That apart, inviting my attention to the amended provisions, as contained in clause 4.17 and 4.18 of the M.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2004, Shri Jain argues that petitioners are not entitled to restoration of electricity connection or grant of fresh electricity connection in view of the aforesaid provisions.