- (1.) BY this petition preferred by M/s. Shantinath Steels through its partner Sri Dhanendra Kumar, the prayer is that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the orders dated 5th May, 1993 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) and dated 8th July, 1993 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) which was the consequential order from the order dated 5th May 1993.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. I is a partnership firm and Sri Dhanendra Kumar and Mrs. Neeru Jain are its partners. THE firm is engaged in the manufacture of M. S. Round Tors, Angles and Channels etc. One Sri Sudhir Kumar has purchased a land of Khasra no. 1007 area 1 bigha 7 biswas in part only and the remaining half of the land was sold by two other separate sale deeds dated 23rd April, 1985 and 9th Sept. 1985. THE petitioners made an application for the electricity connection but the same has been refused by the impugned order dated 5th May, 1993 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) and the consequential order dated 8th July. 1993 Annexure 6 to the writ petition) has also been passed. It appears that in the same premises there was another firm in the name of M/s. Shiva Steels against whom there were arrears of electricity dues to the tune of Rs. 3,85 lakhs which has not been recovered so far. In that connection an estimate report was submitted. On the application of the petitioner the Asstt. Engineer submitted a report dated 26th April, 1993 (Annexure CA-1) to the effect that the partners of M/s. Shantinath Steels (the petitioner) are so connected with partners of M/s. Shiva Steels and they are near relations of Sri Sudhir Kumar Jain, partner of M/s. Shiva Steel, which was already under the arrears of electricity dual to a considerable extent and it was disconnected. As the earlier dues against M/s. Shiva Steels are not cleared the connection cannot be restored in favour of the petitioners, as the liability of the partners in M/s. Shiva Steels was joint and several. This fact has been reiterated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit of the respondents. Sri Ravi Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of circulars dated 29-9-93, the petitioners were neither heir of M/s. Shiva Steels nor a person so connected with them so as to be liable to pay the outstanding dues against them. It was further contended that expression 'or' in circular no. 18.16 (ii) was conjunctive, hence unless partners of M/s. Shantinath Steels are heirs of the partners of M/s. Shiva Steels and at the same time they are persons so connected with them that the petitioners can be made liable for payment of outstanding dues against the (M/s. Shiva Steel). The petitioner's application cannot be rejected. Sri Sudhir Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents urged that the relevant rules on the subject about the rejection of the application for fresh electricity connection is to be found in U.P. State Electricity Board Commercial and Revenue Manual. Chapter XVIII. The aforesaid Circular No. 2410 C/SEB-V 365C/73 dated 29th May, 1993 (as indicated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit) is extracted as under : - "58.16 : A consumer cannot be denied a fresh/new connection : (i) In another premises for non payment of electricity dues or charges in respect of any other premises owned or occupied by him. (ii) In a premises for the reason that certain electricity dues or charges in respect of the same premises are outstanding against another defaulting consumer, unless it appears that the new consumer is either a legal heir of the defaulting consumer or a person so connected with him that the dues outstanding against the defaulting consumer can be recovered from him. (iii) In a premises purchased either under a revenue sale or voluntary transfer and the payment of outstanding dues against the electricity in respect of the premises cannot be insisted upon as a condition precedent for the supply of electricity to him"
(3.) A bare perusal of the circular would indicate that the circular 18.16 (ii) is relevant for our purpose and those provisions are that in case the outstanding electricity dues in respect of the same premises are against another defaulting consumer and unless it appears that new consumer is either a legal heir of the defaulting consumer, i. e, partner of M/s. Shiva Steels or a person so connected with him that the dues outstanding against the defaulting consumer, i.e. M/s. Shiva Steels can be recovered from him, the present petitioner, the new electricity connection cannot be denied to him, In other words, the object under 18.16 (2) appears to be that in case the legal heirs of the defaulting consumer has made an application and he is also prepared to deposit the outstanding bills only in that event the connection can be given. Under paras 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that a partnership firm under the name and style M/s. Shiva Steels was started on Vehlena Road, Muzaffarnagar. That firm was in heavy arrears of electricity dues and recovery proceedings were initiated and the same is still pending. Under para 6 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that Sri Sudhir Kumar Jain was a partner of M/s. Shiva Steel which was in arrears of Rs. 3.85 lakhs as electricity dues, but it was not paid and another firm in petitioner's name was started with Dhanendra Kumar Iain, (the cousin brother of Sudhir Kumar Jain) and Smt. Niru Jain (wife of Sudhir Kumar Jain). In fact, the partners of the firm named M/s. Shantinath Steels, Muzaffarnagar, the petitioners were the cousin and wife of Sudhir Kumar Jain who was the partner in the earlier firm named M/s. Shiva Steels. The expression "in respect of the same premises are outstanding against another defaulting consumer, unless it appears that the new consumer is either a legal heir of the defaulting consumer or a person so connected with him that the dues outstanding against the defaulting consumer can be recovered from him is to be interpreted. It appears in our opinion that the Word 'or' has been used disjunctively and the word 'or' is not equal to 'and' rather both the clauses an independent. The matter as to whether the word 'or' is disjunctive or conjunctive, have to be interpreted in the light of expression employed and the object of the legislation. (See M/s. Garden Silk Weaving Ltd v. C.I.T, Gujrat, JT (1991) 5 SC 160.AIR 199J SC 1322 ; Paras Ram v. State of Haryana, 1992 (4) SCC 662; State of Punjab v. Ec. Col. Ram Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 54). Again we may emphasise that the word 'or' is not used as 'and', rather it is disjunctive. In view of the statement of facts contained in paras 4 to 7 of the counter affidavit, it is evident that Srat. Niru Jain was the wife of Sudhir Kumar Jain, the partner of M/s. Shiva Steels, whereas other partner was the cousin.;