Full Judgment
R.S. Garg, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is. before this Court with a submission that he received 1/4th share in the premises in question vide memorandum of partition dated 15.2.1993 and thereafter applied for electric connection on 24.11.1995. According to him, the connection has been denied to him on the ground of arrears of electric dues against the erstwhile tenant who lived as tenant in 25% share of the petitioner's brother Suraj Prasad in the premises in question. According to the petitioner, if the tenant was occupying separate premises and his brother has been given a separate connection then the respondent Electricity Board is not entitled to refuse connection to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is required to submit a certificate under Section 53 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (in short 'the Act'). The petitioner submits that the tenant was not the petitioner's tenant but in fact was the tenant of his brother and the brother despite lapse of the tenant has already got the connection.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that by order No. 189 dated 24.7.2002 passed in CWJC No. 2290 of 1990 Arun Kumar Mukherjee v. State of Bihar and others, a Division Bench of this Court has already observed that formality relating to supply of water and municipal amenities would also apply to supply of electricity and unless the relevant certificate in terms of Section 53 of the Act is submitted, no connection can be given.
4. For perusal of the Court the said order was produced. I must immediately record that I was a party to the said order. In the said matter, a complaint was made by the counsel appearing for the PRDA that the Patna Municipal Corporation was making water supply and the Electricity Department was giving electric connection in breach of the provisions contained in Section 53 of the Act. It was conceded by the counsel for the Electricity Board and the Corporation that no one would be entitled to water connection and electric connection till relevant certificate in terms of Section 53 of the Act is filed before the local authority at the time of taking connection.
5. It would be useful to refer to Section 53 of the Act which reads as under:-
53. Prohibition of water-supply and municipal authorities to give water connection to newly constructed buildings.-Any agency charged with the duty of supplying water and rendering such other services to buildings, or installations in the development area or the region, shall not give water connection or such other services to any newly constructed building, in the development area or region or convert to permanent domestic use any connection already taken unless the application for such connection is accompanied by a certificate from the authority or the local authority empowered to sanction building plans under this Act :
Provided that temporary water connection for non-domestic use maybe given if the application is accompanied by a plan sanctioned by the authority.'
6. A perusal of Section 53 of the Act would show that there is prohibition against supply of water and to give water connection to the newly constructed buildings. Section 53 in its term says that any agency charged with the duty of supplying water and rendering other services, shall not do so unless such an application is accompanied by a a certificate from the authority (PRDA) or the local authority empowered to sanction building plans under the Act. Undisputedly, the house in dispute was constructed much before the order was issued by this Court or even before commencement of the Act. If the construction was raised much before the Act of 1981 came into force then the taboo placed by Section 53 of the Act apply.
7. I must say that the Electricity Board is under a wrong apprehension that the Division Bench has put an absolute- bar to their powers to give electric connection to the premises/houses which were brought into existence much prior to 1981. The provisions of the Act would apply to the newly constructed buildings which have been built after coming into force of the Act. It would be for the Division Bench to observe or decide whether earlier order deserves to be continued or recalled but that order does not mean to say that Section 53 would apply to the buildings which came into existence much prior to 1981.
8. The Division Bench has observed that for domestic use temporary water connection may be given if the application is accompanied by sanction plan of the PRDA. The Division Bench also observed that for water connection relevant certificate of occupancy has to be filed. However, the observations are to be read in relation to the newly constructed buildings or the buildings which came into existence after 1981. As the petitioner's building was constructed much prior to 1981 his application could not be rejected on the ground of non-supply of sanction certificate occupancy certificate as issued under Section 53 of the Act.
9. It is hereby further made clear that Section 53 of the Act in terms does not include the State Electricity Board. For the first time in the year 1995, a Single Bench of this Court observed that occupancy certificate would be needed even for grant of electric connection. Under the circumstances I must observe that the buildings which were constructed prior to 1995 if are already having connection, then such connection cannot be held to be bad. This I am required to clarify because thousands of the connections have been given prior to 1995. In any case the petitioner's case at all would not be covered by Section 53 of the Act.
10. The respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the petitioner's application by a speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. This application is accordingly disposed of.