Patna High Court
Chanda SinhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as there is no illegality or perversity in the Single Judge’s order and the appellant is liable for the arrears of the prior consumer.
Summary
Chanda Sinha filed a writ petition seeking reconnection of electricity, quashing of a demand of Rs. 8,64,950 and setting aside a consumer forum order, alleging illegal disconnection without notice. The respondents argued that a prior connection on the same premises, held in the name of the appellant’s mother‑in‑law, had arrears of Rs. 6,89,836, which were lawfully attached to the appellant’s new connection. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant, as a subsequent consumer, is bound to clear the earlier dues and that the disconnection was justified. On appeal, the Division Bench reiterated that the appellate court may not disturb factual findings unless perverse or unsupported, and found no illegality in the lower court’s order. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a subsequent consumer is liable to pay the arrears of a prior consumer on the same premises.
- Whether the disconnection of supply without prior notice violates Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
- Whether the Bihar Electricity Supply Code (4th Amendment) 2015 permits refusal of a new connection when arrears exist on the premises.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the factual dispute regarding relationship and liability.
- Whether the appellate court can interfere with the factual findings of the Single Judge in a Letters Patent Appeal.
Legislation cited
- Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 56
Subjects
- electricity disconnection
- arrears liability
- consumer connection
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Section 56
- Bihar Electricity Supply Code
- consumer grievance
- property ownership
- relationship disclosure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.649 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8919 of 2023
======================================================
Chanda Sinha, Wife of Sri Anchit Kumar Sinha, resident of L.N. Singh Lane,
Thakurbari, Mohalla- Sujapur, P.S. Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna - 1, Bihar.
3. The Managing Director, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.,
Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - 1, Bihar.
4. The Chief Engineer (Commercial), South Bihar Power Distribution
Company Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - 1, Bihar.
5. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division (Urban), South
Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd, Bhagalpur.
6. Asst. Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division (Urban), South Bihar
Power Distribution Company Ltd, Bhagalpur.
7. Add. Collector, cum Public Complaint Redressal Officer, Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate
Mr. Debesh Kr. Poddar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Singh, AAG-7
Mr. Rajeev Kr. Sinha, AC to AAG-7
For SBPDCL : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 12-01-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed
challenging the order dated 21.03.2025, passed by the learned
Single Judge in CWJC No. 8919 of 2023.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.649 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
2/10
The writ petition was filed by the present appellant
seeking for following reliefs :-
"(i) 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.
(ii) For 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
contained in Annexure-7 Series of the
application.
(iii) 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 contained in Annexure- 9 of
the application.
iv) For issuance of any
appropriate
writ/writs/order/orders/direction/directions
to which the petitioner is entitled in
accordance with law."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.649 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
3/10
2. The notices were issued to the respondent No. 2
South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited 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 is 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.
3. The learned Single Judge, after going through the
pleadings and hearing the learned counsels for the respective
parties, has been pleased to hold as follows :-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.649 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
4/10
"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 petitoiner 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.649 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
5/10
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."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the appellant is no way related to Vibha Rani Sinha and that is
why the application was made for a fresh connection and the
appellant is no way liable to pay the outstanding dues which
was against late Vibha Rani Sinha. In support of such
contention, learned counsel has pointed out Section 56 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as follows :-
"56. Disconnection of supply in
default of payment-(1) Where any person
neglects to pay any charge for electricity or
any sum other than a charge for electricity
due from him to a licensee or the
generating company in respect of supply,
transmission or distribution or wheeling of
electricity to him, the licensee or the
generating company may, after giving not
less than fifteen clear days' notice in
writing, to such person and without
prejudice to his rights to recover such
charge or other sum by suit, cut off the
supply of electricity and for that purpose
cut or disconnect any electric supply line
or other works being the property of such
licensee or the generating company
Patna High Court L.P.A No.649 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
6/10
through which electricity may have been
supplied, transmitted, distributed or
wheeled and may discontinue the supply
until such charge or other sum, together
with any expenses incurred by him in
cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are
paid, but no longer:
Provided that the supply of
electricity shall not be cut off if such
person deposits, under protest,-
(a) an amount equal to the sum
claimed from him, or
(b) the electricity charges due
from him for each month calculated on the
basis of average charge for electricity paid
by him during the preceding six months,
whichever is less, pending
disposal of any dispute between him and
the licensee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, no sum due from any
consumer, under this section shall be
recoverable after the period of two years
from the date when such sum became first
due unless such sum has been shown
continuously as recoverable as arrear of
charges for electricity supplied and the
licensee shall not cut off the supply of the
electricity."
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the
other hand, placed before us the Bihar Electricity Supply Code
(4th Amendment), 2015 which was notified on 18th May, 2015,
wherein there is an amendment to Chapter 4 of the Code and in
the third proviso of Clause 4.1, it was substituted as follows :
Patna High Court L.P.A No.649 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
7/10
"(iii) If there are arrears of
electricity dues on a premises, a new
connection may be refused to a new
applicant on the same premises if the
applicant being an individual is an
associate or relative as defined in Section 2
and 6 respectively of the companies Act,
1956 of the defaulting consumer, or where
the applicant being a company or body
corporate or association, or body of
individuals, whether in corporate or not, or
artificial judicial person, is controlled, or
having controlling interest in the defaulting
customer. Provided the Licensee shall not
refuse electric connection on this ground,
unless an opportunity to present his case is
provided to the applicant and reasoned
order is passed by an officer designated by
the licensee for this purpose and the order
of refusal shall be communicated within
one month of receipt of the application."
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further
argued that since there were arrears of electricity dues on the
premises, the new connection would have been refused by the
department but since the appellant suppressed her relationship
with Vibha Rani Sinha and also that there was already an
electricity connection to the same premises, the electricity
connection was given. Learned counsel further submits that
whether the appellant is related to Vibha Rani Sinha or not that
cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition, which is a disputed
question of fact. Moreover, there is no palpable error or
Patna High Court L.P.A No.649 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
8/10
perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge and,
therefore, it should not be interfered with.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also
placed a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and others
reported in (2023) 14 SCC 431 wherein it has been held as
follows :-
"341.1. The duty to supply electricity under
Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute,
and is subject to such charges and
compliances stipulated by the electric
Utilities as part of the application for
supply of electricity;
x x x
341.8. The power to initiate recovery
proceedings by filing a suit against the
defaulting consumer is independent of the
power to disconnect electrical supply as a
means of recovery under Section 56 of the
2003 Act;"
7. When we asked the learned counsel for the
appellant as to whether the appellant is ready and willing to
pay back the arrear dues even by way of instalment, the answer
was in negative, rather it was stated that it is up to the authority
to take recourse to sell away the property and to recover their
dues. There is no dispute that certificate proceeding has
already been instituted.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.649 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
9/10
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.
[(1996) 3 SCC 52 (Baddula Lakshmaiah and others vs. Sri
Anjaneya Swami Temple and others)]. 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.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.649 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
10/10
10. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Rajesh/U.K.
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…