IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5234 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10166 of 2007)

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another       ...Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. Excel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Others    ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

By the impugned order,  the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while

issuing notice of  motion in the writ  petition filed by Respondent No.1 for striking

down Clause 21-A of the Terms and Conditions of Supply framed under Section 49

read with Section 79-J of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, unconditionally stayed

the  demand  of  the  arrears  of  electricity  dues  raised  by  the  appellant-Nigam and

directed it to release electricity connection to Respondent No.1. Learned  counsel  for

the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran

Nigam Ltd. vs. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd. in [2006 (13) SCC 101], and argued that

the High Court was not justified in granting unconditional stay ignoring the fact that

in terms of Clause 21-A of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, Respondent No.1 was

required to pay the arrears of electricity dues amounting to Rupees eighty five lakhs

twenty one thousand and two hundred thirty five.

....2/-

- 2 -

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 argued that in the absence of any

stipulation  in  the  auction  notice  his  client  cannot  be  burdened  with  the  dues  of

electricity payable by Respondent No.3.  He submitted that the judgment relied upon

by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present case because

validity  of  Clause  21-A  of  the  Terms  and  Conditions  of  Supply  which  is  under

challenge in the writ petition was not the subject matter of challenge in that case.

We have considered the respective arguments.

Before proceeding further,  it  is  apposite to mention that, on 4th August,

2008,  we  had,  after  taking  note  of  the  undertaking  given  by  the  counsel  for

Respondent No.1 that his client will deposit a sum of Rupees ten lakhs within two

days,  directed  the  appellant-Nigam  to  restore  electricity  connection  to  the

establishment  of  Respondent  No.1.   We have been told that  the aforesaid sum of

Rupees ten lakhs has been deposited and the electricity connection has been restored.

Since the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 questioning the validity of

Clause 21-A of Terms and Conditions of Supply is pending before the High Court, it

is not proper for us to express any opinion on the merits of the case.  However, we are

convinced that the impugned order is  legally unsustainable.   In  Dakshin Haryana

Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra), this Court interpreted Clause 21-A of the Terms and

Conditions of Supply, distinguished the earlier judgment in  Isha Marbles vs.  Bihar

State Electricity Board [1995 (2) S.C.C. 648] and directed the respondent to pay a

sum of Rupees twenty five lakhs with a further direction that, in the event of deposit

of the amount, the supply of electricity

....3/-

- 3 -

will not be disconnected.  In the present case, a sum of Rupees ten lakhs has already

been deposited  by Respondent  No.1.   Therefore,  we direct  the said  respondent  to

deposit  a  further  sum of  Rupees  twenty  five  lakhs with  the  Nigam.  Out  of  this,

Rupees twelve lakhs and fifty thousand shall be deposited within three months and

the balance amount shall be deposited within three months thereafter.

Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  allowed  in-part  and  the  impugned  order  is

modified by directing that the stay granted by the High Court shall remain operative

if  Respondent  No.1 deposits  Rupees  twelve  lakhs  and fifty  thousand  within  three

months and the remaining amount within three months thereafter.  If  Respondent

No.1 fails to deposit either of the instalments, the stay order passed by the High Court

shall  stand  automatically  vacated  and  it  will  be  open  to  the  appellant-Nigam  to

disconnect the supply of electricity forthwith.  So far as the current electricity charges

are concerned, Respondent No.1 shall deposit the same within the time permissible

under the law and, in case it fails to do so, the Nigam would be at liberty to disconnect

the supply of electricity.   

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, August 25, 2008.