P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by respondent No. 6 WP (C) No. 1514 of 2002 on the file of this Court. That writ petition was filed by the Damodar Valley Corporation (herein after referred to as DV Corporation) praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to stop illegal and wrongful supply of electrical energy to its consumers at 30,000 volts or more, without permission of the DV Corporation and to restrain the illegal supply of electricity in violation of the provisions of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948, to consumers and especially to a defaulting consumer respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. The writ petition having been allowed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed by respondent No. 6 challenging that decision.
(2.) THE appellant is a manufacturer of ingots by melting sponge iron and pig iron. In October, 2000, the appellant approached the DV Corporation, which generates and supplies electricity in Damodar Valley, subject to the provisions of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 . On 18.10.2000, the DV Corporation wrote a letter to the appellant informing the appellant of the requirements it should fulfil, before electrical connection could be given and supply of electrical energy commenced. According to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 4000.00 was deposited by it pursuant to the communication received by it from the DV Corporation. On 18.2.2001, the DV Corporation wrote to the appellant informing that the cost of the works to be installed, if done by DV Corporation would be Rs. 31.12 lakhs, but if it is got done by the consumer itself, the supervisory charges payable to DV Corporation would be Rs. 24.91 lakhs. There was the further condition that the contract demand should be at around minimum of 5 KVA from the 25th month onwards from the date of commencement of consumption. Instead of pursuing its request with the DV Corporation and doing what was necessary to obtain supply from the DV Corporation, the appellant hurriedly approached the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Board) for getting a connection and for supply of power as required by it. The Electricity Board proceeded to supply power to the appellant as required by the appellant. Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition had earlier obtained a connection for supply of electrical energy from the DV Corporation exceeding a pressure of 30,000 volts. Respondent No. 5 defaulted. The DV Corporation, therefore, disconnected the supply of electrical energy to respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. Thereupon, respondent No. 5 applied for and obtained supply from the Electricity Board which did not even ask respondent No. 5 to pay the arrears due to DV Corporation. The DV Corporation came to know of the conduct of the Electricity Board in the matter of supply of energy to defaulting consumers, like respondent No. 5. The DV Corporation thereupon informed the Electricity Board that in terms of the DV Corporation Act, the Board had no power or authority to supply electrical energy at a pressure exceeding 30,000 volts and the act of the Board in supplying energy to its consumers including respondent No. 5 was in clear violation of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, hence illegal and, therefore, it was bound to discontinue the supply of electrical energy at a pressure exceeding 30,000 volts to all its consumers. It was pointed out that prior permission of the DV Corporation was necessary before commencement of any such supply of energy. The electricity Board apparently did not even respond to the letters of the DV Corporation in that behalf and in that context, the DV Corporation filed the writ petition in this Court seeking to restrain the Electricity Board from supplying electrical energy to its consumers exceeding a pressure of 30,000 volts in violation of Sec.18 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act and without prior permission of the DV Corporation. The appellant herein was impleaded in view of the fact that the appellant was also being supplied by the Electricity Board, electrical energy at a pressure exceeding 30,00 volts. The relief prayed for was clearly intended to affect the appellant as well.
(3.) THE case of the appellant and that of the Electricity Board in defence of the action of the Electricity Board was that under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the Board had the power to supply electrical energy to its consumers. In fact, it was its duty. The DV Corporation Act was enacted before the Electricity Supply Act itself was enacted. The provisions in the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 could not therefore prevail over the Electricity Supply Act, whatever might have been the position relating to the provisions of the Electricity Act of 1910. In other words, the contention was that after coming into force of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the Supply Act), the restriction on supply of electrical energy imposed by the Damodar Valley Corporation Act and especially by Sec.18 of the Act, did not have any effect and the restriction could not prevail over the power of the Board available under the Supply Act.;