Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sudhir Singh delivered a 10-page long judgment on January 12, 2026 in Chanda Sinha vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Bihar & Ors.(2026), wherein it upheld the judgement by Justice A. Abhishek Reddy. In the 13th judgement authored by Chief Justice Sahoo, the Court concluded:"8. A Letters Patent Appeal, as permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate court. In such appellate jurisdiction, the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error." The Court added that it has been held in [(1996) 3 SCC 52 (Baddula Lakshmaiah and others vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and others)] that "the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal should not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge of the Court unless it is shown to be based on no evidence, perverse, palpably unreasonable or inconsistent with any particular position of law. This scope of interference is within a narrow compass. Appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent is really a corrective jurisdiction and it is used rarely only to correct the errors, if any, made. 9. After going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and particularly in view of the provision which has been placed before us by the learned counsel for the respondents and the amended provision, we find that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed."
The Letters Patent Appeal was filed challenging the order dated March 21, 2025, passed by the Single Judge in CWJC No. 8919 of 2023. The writ petition prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs/order/orders/direction/directions commanding the respondents to direct the respondent authorities to connect the electric Supply of the petitioner bearing Consumer No-233303455907 forthwith which was illegally disconnected without any prior notice to the petitioner. It also sought issuance of an appropriate writ/writs/order/orders/direction/directions commanding the respondents to quash the illegal demand of Rs. 8,64,950/ in pursuance to illegal Bill for the month of August 2020 as well as notice dated 1/3/2023 in Certificate Case No-35 of 2023 issued by the Certificate Officer, Bhagalpur. It prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs/order/orders/direction/directions commanding the respondents to quash the order dated 19/10/2022 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Bhagalpur registered as Complaint case No-48/2022. The notices were issued to The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd, Patna, the respondent No. 2 and other respondents. The respondent No. 2 entered appearance and challenged the maintainability of the writ petition specifically stating that there was an earlier consumer whose name was Vibha Rani Sinha bearing connection No. 23330002512 in the very same premises where the petitioner had applied for a new connection and the said Vibha Rani Sinha had arrears to the tune of Rs. 6,89,836/- who was none else than the mother-in-law of the appellant. The appellant without disclosing that earlier connection was in the name of her mother-in-law applied for new connection and the connection was given and subsequently when it came to the notice of the authorities regarding the relationship between the appellant and Vibha Rani Sinha who has expired and that the appellant suppressed the material facts while submitting the application for a fresh connection, the outstanding dues which was in the name of late Vibha Rani Sinha was added to the bill of the appellant but since she did not pay the same, the disconnection was made.
Justice Reddy had passed a 6-page long judgement dated March 21, 2025 which reads: "6. Admittedly, in this particular case fact that the earlier connection is standing in the name of Late Vibha Rani Sinha for the very same premises has not been denied by the petitioner. When queried by this Court with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and Late Vibha Rani Sinha, the petitioner initially tried to deny the relationship between Late Vibha Rani Sinha and herself however has accepted that Late Vibha Rani Sinha is her mother-in-law i.e., her husband's mother. Once it comes to the knowledge of the authorities that in respect of the very same premises, the earlier electricity connection is having dues, the subsequent consumer is liable to pay the same more so, when the petitioner is claiming the subject property through the very same person. In this particular case, the petitioner when queried by this Court, has declined to answer as how she got the property and tried to evade the question but as culled out from the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner is none other than the daughter-in-law of Late Vibha Rani Sinha and claiming the property through her only. The provisions of the Act are very clear on this aspect, that any subsequent consumer is bound to clear the outstanding dues, if any of the earlier consumer more so, when the property is being claimed through the very same person. In this particular case, though the petitioner had not disclosed about the earlier connection and the outstanding dues of the earlier consumer bearing No. 23330002512, the authorities subsequently having come to know about the same are justified in seeking to recovery the said outstanding dues from the petitioner herein. 7. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition which warrants any interference by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed however, without any costs." The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sahoo and Justice Singh has endorsed the judgement.
No comments:
Post a Comment