VIRENDER SINGH,J. - (1.) Not only there is huge delay of 251 days in filing the instant appeal by appellant-Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. for which there appears to be no cause much less sufficient cause carved out in the Interlocutory Application No. 1596 of 2016 whereby condonation of the said delay is being sought and on this ground alone even the main appeal deserves to be dismissed, but for our satisfaction we have considered the case of the appellant on merits as well and find that dispute arose between respondent nos. 1 and 2 with regard to a particular plot (Plot No. 4 under Khata No. 67 in Mouza-Sasbera) of which father of respondent no. 2 was the licensee and after his death, respondent no. 2 stepped into his shoes and started running a Petrol Pump (retail outlet) and Car Servicing Station on the aforesaid plot. What appears to this Court is that respondent-Indian Explosive Limited, Bokaro had given an electric connection to respondent no. 2 for running the said Petrol Pump and subsequently, a civil litigation started in the civil court (Title Suit No. 22 of 2003) by respondent no. 2 in which an interim direction restraining the respondent -Indian Explosive Limited from disconnecting the electricity and water supply to the plaintiff-respondent no. 2 was issued. It so happened that respondent no. 2 also applied for a separate connection for the same premises by submitting an application on 29.04.2013 before the appellant-Nigam claiming himself to be an occupier of the said land and the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Tenughat, proforma respondent no. 3 (respondent no. 2 before the Writ Court) gave the electric connection to him. Respondent- Indian Explosive Limited being aggrieved of the said order contained in Memo No. 303 dated 09.05.2013 moved the Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(C) No. 3257 of 2013 seeking quashing of the said order. The learned Writ Court while entering into the factual aspects of the matter ultimately came to the conclusion that Electrical Executive Engineer (respondent no. 2 before the Writ Court) had committed serious illegality in discharge of his official duty and thus, directed the appellant to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him for not taking action in accordance with law. While allowing the writ petition, a direction was given to the appellant to disconnect the electricity connection of respondent no. 4 before the Writ Court (appellant in the connected L.P.A. No. 311 of 2015).
(2.) Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Nigam submits that, in fact, Electrical Executive Engineer (respondent no. 2 before the Writ Court) had granted the electricity connection strictly in accordance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in fact, had not committed any illegality much less serious illegality in discharge of his official duty though, at the time of accepting the form for the purpose of granting electricity connection to respondent no. 2 he might have committed certain mistakes. He thus submits that the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court are not justified on this count. He however, fairly states that in terms of the directions contained in the operative part of the impugned order, electricity connection of respondent no. 2 has since been disconnected by the appellant.
(3.) Admittedly, the civil suit filed by respondent no. 2 is still pending and the interim direction issued by the trial court is also in force till date. On specific query put to Mr. Ajit Kumar, as to whether the appellant-Nigam has laid motion before the civil court for modification of the interim order dated 10.06.2004 so as to raise any dispute with regard to earlier connection given by the respondent- Indian Explosive Limited to respondent no. 2, he, on instruction, states that no such application has been moved by the respondent-Nigam in this regard. Mr. Ajit Kumar, however, fairly states that he may be allowed to withdraw the instant appeal with liberty to lay motion before the civil court for impleadment of the appellant in Title Suit No. 22 of 2003 initiated at the instance of respondent no. 2 which is still pending. The learned Senior Counsel however, made a prayer that the observations made by the learned Writ Court with regard to the action by respondent no. 2 before the Writ Court may not be construed as expression of opinion in any proceeding including the disciplinary proceeding to be initiated by the appellant.;