- (1.) The following order in this case was passed by us on 6/1 1/1996: "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 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 I 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 1 shall pay the costs of the appellant which are estimated at rupees fifty thousand only. "
(2.) The reasons for passing the aforesaid order are as under: This is a case of gross abuse of the process of the 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, Calcutta. After completion of inspection, the CESC agreed to supply. electricity to N. M. Banka by letter dated 5/2/1988 subject to compliance of 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 and Printing Works which was carrying on business at the same premises. The partnership 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 of 50 hp. On coming to know that N. M. Banka was a partner of Rajkumar Dyeing and Printing Works, which was a defaulter in payment of electricity charges, the CESC Limited by letter dated 22/9/1988 informed Banka that supply of electricity to him has been kept in abeyance. Apart from the huge liability of Rajkumar Dyeing and Printing Works, there was also a technical difficulty in giving a separate electric connection to Banka because it was not possible to give two separate electric connections to one particular premises. Existence of two services in the same premises would be hazardous.
(3.) On 22/7/1988, a writ petition was moved by Rajkumar Dyeing and Printing Works, the partnership firm and also Shri Banka, the partner for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding CESC and their officers from disconnecting the electricity line of the factory situated at No. 11, U. N. Mukherjee Road. Calcutta. A prayer was also made to refer the disputed bills to the arbitrator as provided in the Indian Electricity Act for adjudication. The allegation was that CESC had issued an inflated bill for the month of June 1988and were threatening to disconnect electricity to the appellants if they failed to pay the said bill by 20/7/1988. It was further prayed that if the electricity line was disconnected, the factory will have to be closed down and about 90 workers will have to be laid off without any fault of the appellants. The writ petition was moved ex parte and a direction was given that the electricity supply will not be disconnected "till Wednesday next". On 28/7/1988, the matter was once again heard ex parte and the interim order not to disconnect the supply was further continued. The matter, thereafter, has come up for hearing from time to time and the interim order has been continued with occasional directions to deposit some money. By this process, the writ petition was kept pending for more than five years. The appellant who was a defaulter when the writ petition was filed continued to get supply of electricity by making occasional payments pursuant to the direction of the court. The writ petitioner did not pay the bills submitted in the usual course, the arrears kept mounting up and the CESC ultimately disconnected the line. By an order dated 16/2/1993, the court directed the line to be restored and the writ petition was directed to remain heard in part.;