- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) THE instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents that no action should be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of inspection report of Electricity Enforcement Cell dated 14.4.2012. It appears that the petitioner's unit was examined? by the electricity enforcement team of the respondents on 14.4.2012.? Electricity Enforcement Team found certain illegality which includes the use of electricity for industrial purpose, though the connection is for commercial purpose constituting offence under Section 135(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner has claimed the following relief:- (i)?? Issue any writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party not to initiate any proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance of checking report dated 14.04.2012 of the opposite party No. 2. (ii)?? Issue any writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party not to initiate any civil or criminal proceeding under-Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. (iii)? Issue any writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party to resume the electricity supply of the petitioner which has been disconnected due to non-payment of cheque of Rs. 5 lacs. (iv) ? Issue any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v)??? Allow the petition with cost. Is trite law that no mandamus may be issued by the Court in violation of statutory provisions.? A mandamus may be issued in case authorities have been assigned certain duties which is not being discharged by them causing loss to the aggrieved party.? The aggrieved party must have some statutory right. In the present case, a prayer has been made to direct that no action should be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to inspection report dated 14.4.2012. Mission is that the finding recorded by the enforcement team is erroneous and based on unfounded facts.? It is also submitted that no offence is made out under section 1359e) of the Act.? Whether the finding recorded by the enforcement team is correct or not, is a disputed question of fact.
(3.) BY making inspection, the enforcement team has discharged its statutory obligation and while proceeding under Section 135 (e) of the Act, it has also discharged its statutory obligation.? Disconnection of electricity on account of non payment of dues is also statutory duty.? In case the petitioner has not paid the dues, prima facie, the respondents have got right to disconnect the electricity.? Of course, in case the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the action of respondents or the enforcement team, then option is open to the petitioner to approach appropriate Forum under the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules/Regulations framed thereunder.? No mandamus can be issued by this Court restraining the respondents from discharging their statutory duty or restore the electricity connection which has been disconnected on account of non payment of dues.? In case the petitioner has made payment, he may approach the authority concerned but mandamus cannot be issued by this Court vide 1966 (4) SCC 447: The State of West Bengal and another vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (Para 16 and 17), 1996 (9) SCC 309; State of U.P. and others vs. Harish Chandra and others (Para 10), 1997 (10) SCC 264; Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad and others vs. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and others(Para 13), 1994 (1) SCC 175; State of Punjab and others vs. Renuka Singla and others(Para 8) and AIR 1997 SC 1446;Ram Ganesh Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P. and others(Para 7 & 9). During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued for grant of relief as prayed (supra). While pressing for the relief, the petitioner himself has made prayer? that the cost may be imposed so that he may approach the Supreme Court by preparing appeal.? The writ petition has been preferred with misconceived prayer which cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.? The petitioner could have approached the executive engineer/ competent authority for connection of electricity and the decision taken by the respondents could have challenged wherever the same is communicated. The prayer made in the instant writ petition is not only misconceived but also seems to be an abuse of process of law and not maintainable.? It is a fit case where cost should be imposed in view of settled proposition of law vide (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344, Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) vs. Union of India.;