1. Since common question of law is involved in all these matters, with the consent of the parties, they were heard together and are now being decided by way of this common order, with S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 115/2019 being taken as lead file.

BACKGROUND

2. The misc. application along with the connected writ petitions pertains to release of electricity connection to premises situated in Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme (for short “PRN scheme”) of the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short “JDA”). The PRN Scheme has been the subject of various litigation in not only this Court, but also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the last round of litigation, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05.07.2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2740/2013 & other connected petitions titled as ‘Sugan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’ reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2070, while hearing a challenge to the order dated 21.06.2012 issued by Department of Urban Development and Housing (for short “UDH”) which directed JDA to allot plot in favour of illegal occupier of the land after taking certain charges, passed the following directions:

“The perusal of the rule quoted above shows that in what circumstances and to what extent government can relax the rules. In the light of the provision aforesaid and as said rules have been invoked while passing the impugned order, the rate fixed for allotment of land cannot be interfered as such in view of the policy decision of the government. Rule 8, 9, 12, 14, 14B, 15, 15A and 17 of the Rules of 1974 provide manner and procedure for allotment of land. Rule 31 of the Rules of 1974 however gives power to government to relax rule for price, size of plot etc. This rule has been invoked looking to various aspects which include size of people to be affected and if a decision for allotment in accordance with the rules and for planned development of the area is not taken, demolition of thousands of houses with reconstruction would be nothing but a national wastage.

It is, however, necessary to comment that an area is developed only when government gets sufficient funds hence while fixing the rates for development charges, it should be at the actual cost to be borne by the respondents for development of the area thus development charges should be fixed keeping in view the aforesaid and the area should be developed immediately in the planned manner. For the aforesaid purpose, if constructions are to be removed, then this judgment will not come in the way of the respondents, rather they are directed not to sacrifice planned development to save encroachments and illegal constructions. It should be carried out as per the plan.

In view of the detailed discussion on all the issues, the writ petitions are allowed with following directions-

1. The respondents are directed to allot plots to those petitioners who not only remained successful in the draw of lottery but deposited the amount pursuant to the demand letter issued to them. It would obviously leaving those who had withdrawn their amount or opted for other scheme(s) followed by issuance of lease deed.

2. The respondents may further consider cases of another category of petitioners who had deposited registration fee and paid the amount in part pursuant to the draw of lottery and demand letter. It would be expected of the respondents that a proper and sympathetic view would be taken for second category of petitioners at the earliest and, if possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This would exclude those who had opted for other scheme and thereupon given lease deed or withdrawn the amount.

3. So far as the impugned order dated 21.6.2012 at Annexure-16B, passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing (UDH) (in CW 2740/2006 “Sugan Singh v. State of Rajasthan”) is concerned, it cannot be given effect to as it has not been expressed in the name of HE the Governor so as to comply the mandate of rule 11 of the Rules of Business so as Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India. The respondents would however be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with rule 11 of the Rules of Business so as Article 166(1) of the Constitution, if it has not already been issued.

4. The respondents are further directed to even carry out development work of Kalpana Nagar area where some of the initial applicants not only opted but given lease deed. Such development should be carried out in phased manner and, if possible, within a period of six months.

5. A direction has been given in para (3) above not to give effect to the order dated 21.6.2012 as it has not been expressed in the name of HE the Governor, however, the issue pertaining to it has been raised in the writ petition and discussed. A request is made by both the parties for necessary directions thus further directions are issued. Following directions would apply if fresh order is issued or has already been issued as per liberty given above.

A. The respondents will not sacrifice development of the area rather development would be made as per the plan. If any encroachment or construction is raised creating obstruction for planned development of road, facility area etc, such construction/encroachment would be removed by the respondents. They would however be at liberty to rehabilitate such persons in accordance with the Rules of 1974 or by a policy decision, if not already framed.

B. The allotment of commercial plots should be in accordance with the Rules of 1974.

C. The allotment of plots for residential purpose would be subject to the directions in para (A) above. The respondents would further make distinction between those who raised construction and those who did not raise construction on the disputed land. The respondents are directed to take proper decision as to whether allotment should be made in favour of those who raised construction after 9.4.2003, the date of stay order passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 6709/2002, which was finally disposed of by this court vide order dated 29.10.2010. If decision comes favourable taking into consideration larger public interest and to avoid demolition of construction resulting in national wastage, then also they are directed to appropriately determine penal amount or higher rate of allotment for those who raised construction after the date mentioned above. The identification of such persons would be made based on the date of electricity connection on the plot. The respondents would further be at liberty to impose lesser penalty on those who are poor and small plot holders i.e. who are having plot size upto 250 square yards.

D. The cases of those applicants who had either opted or granted lease deed elsewhere or withdrawn the amount would not be reviewed and will have no right pursuant to the judgment of this court as on withdrawal or issuance of lease deed elsewhere, their applications got exhausted.

E. The respondents are further directed to determine the development charges after taking note of the amount required for development of road, electricity, sewerage etc. The amount so collected would be used for proper development of the area with required infrastructure.

F. Till the allotment is made in favour of the petitioners or others, respondents are directed not to release electricity connections. This is to avoid possibility of further construction without allotment of plot.

In case of any difficulty in carrying out the directions aforesaid or otherwise, affected parties would be at liberty to make appropriate application before this court for clarification/modification.

(emphasis supplied)”

3. The bone of contention in this misc. application along with the connected writ petitions is the condition F, as reproduced above, which necessitates a valid allotment in favour of any person seeking release of electricity connection. Being aggrieved of the said condition, the applicant-JVVNL has filed the present misc. application.

SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL, Mr. Bipin Gupta, submits that as the applicant-JVVNL was not a party in Sugan Singh (supra), the applicant-JVVNL is constrained to file the present application for modification of order dated 05.07.2013, in pursuance to liberty being granted by this Court vide order dated 05.07.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL submits that the restrictions imposed vide condition F regarding non-release of electrical connection is causing serious operational and financial crisis to the applicant-JVVNL, which is an instrumentality of State, and such loss to the applicant-JVVNL is loss to the public exchequer. It is submitted that a number of houses have already been constructed and people living there are using the electricity in an unauthorized manner. It is contended that such theft in the area is difficult to control on account the people living there and especially the dire law and order situation which is created as and when the Anti Evasion Squad visits the area concerned. The resultant position is that there is large scale electricity theft in PRN, which is difficult to control. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL has also highlighted that there is constant apprehension of injury to life/limb of the employees of the applicant-JVVNL who are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring proper electrical supply and prevention of theft in PRN Scheme due to threat from a large number of users who are forced to take supply of electricity in an unauthorized manner due to the restriction imposed by this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL has also emphasized that the applicant-JVVNL is also facing a lot of operational issues/losses in the form of destruction/obstruction to the transmission lines in the PRN Scheme by the users of electricity who tamper with the supply infrastructure.

5. On merits, learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL submits that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts an obligation upon the applicant-JVVNL to supply electricity to either the owner or occupier of the premise entitled to receive electricity connection. It is contended that electricity being a basic right, Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 casts an absolute obligation upon the applicant-JVVNL to ensure supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of the premise entitled to receive the supply. As per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, all that the applicant- JVVNL has to see is whether the person seeking supply of electricity is in occupation of the premise that is entitled to receive supply. Whether the occupation of said premise is lawful or not is of no consequence and would not hinder the statutory obligation cast upon the applicant to ensure supply of electricity. On the said aspect and on the expansive interpretation of the word ‘occupier’, learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL has relied on the following judgments:

"i.) Dilip (Dead) through L.Rs. vs. Satish and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2022/INSC/570);

ii.) Laxmi Ram Pawar vs. Sitabai Balu Dhotre and Ors.: AIR 2011 SC 450 [LQ/SC/2010/1316] ;

iii.) K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023/INSC/560): 2023 (8) SCALE 564; iv.) Abhimanyu Mazumdar v. Superintending Engineer: AIR 2011 Calcutta 64;

v.) Amarendra Singh vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and Ors.: AIR 2008 Calcutta 66;

vi.) Tarun Dey v. Andaman & Nicobar Administration: 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 5582;

vii.) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors. vs. Jayanthi Sundhar and Ors.: AIR 2015 Madras 197;

viii.) Sudharshan Kumar Sharma and Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2022/DHC/004833): 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3720;

ix.) Om Parkash v. Balkar Singh: 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3733;

x.) Kanubhai Jethabhai Rohit and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.: AIR 2018 Gujarat 21."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL further submits that the prayer of the petitioners in Sugan Singh (supra) has been successfully addressed by the JDA and furthermore the directions of this Court have been complied with in letter and in spirit. It is submitted that as per JDA letter dated 07.08.2018, the grievance of all the petitioners in Sugan Singh (supra) have been addresses and they have either been allotted plots in the PRN scheme or allotted plots in Kalpana Colony. Thus, the endeavour of this Court to protect and give primacy to the bona-fide and legitimate rights of the petitioners therein over the encroachers by not releasing electricity connection to the latter has already been achieved. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL further contends that grant of electricity connection cannot regularize the claim of encroachers, nor will grant of electricity connection create any right whatsoever in favour of the purported encroachers. The JVVNL and JDA, though instrumentalities of the same State, are distinct bodies with different functions and powers. Any electricity connection by the applicant-JVVNL cannot immunise the encroachment from appropriate action, nor can any trespasser claim that since Discom has released electricity connection, no action be taken against his/her encroachment.

7. Supporting the contentions made by Mr. Bipin Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL, learned counsels for the various petitioners contends that lease deed/patta is not sine qua non for release of electricity connection. It is contended that electricity is an essential service and right to receive essential service is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be restricted on technical ground of not having lease deed of a premise which is otherwise entitled to receive supply of electricity.

8. Learned counsel cum Amicus Curiae, Mr. P.N. Bhandari, submits that the operation of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be diluted, directly or indirectly, since the constitutional validity of Section 43 of Electricity Act, 2003 is not challenged. Learned Amicus Curiae has relied on Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Dhanraj vs. Vikram Singh (Civil Appeal No. 3117/2009; decided on 10.05.2023) to submit that there being no challenge to the vires of provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, and in absence of specific pleading, Writ Court should not go into the issue of repugnancy. It is submitted that the case of Sugan Singh (supra) was only concerned about the development of PRN Scheme and since the Discoms were not a party therein, no opportunity was given to the Discoms to make submissions about the legal implication of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further submitted that by virtue of condition F, the Co-ordinate Bench had in effect stayed the operation of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the opinion of the learned Amicus Curiae, since such a stay should not and could not have been granted, necessary modification of order dated 05.07.2013 is required. Learned Amicus Curiae further opined that issuance of lease deed and grant of electricity connection are two separate and independent exercises with one having no bearing on the other. Merely because electricity connections are released to occupants of a premise which is entitled to receive supply, would not preclude the JDA or other competent authorities to proceed against the land grabbers/encroachers, as the release of electric connection to anyone cannot fortify the claims of any trespasser.

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT

9. As per the minutes of meeting dated 03.05.2023, which was presided over by Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, the stand of the State is that denying the supply of electricity to residents of PRN Scheme who do not possess lease deed/patta would not be in consonance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

10. Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr. G. S Bapna, representing the JDA, and the erstwhile counsel for JDA, Mr. Punit Singhvi, have opposed the prayer made in the present misc. application along with the connected writ petitions. At the outset, learned counsels for the JDA emphasized that the Co-ordinate Bench judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 has not been assailed and has thus attained finality. As per learned senior counsel for the JDA, ‘occupier’ has to be read as ‘peaceful occupier’. As per him, the UDH order dated 22.12.2014 is still in force, which necessitates presentation of lease deed/patta to secure electricity connection in the area/scheme in question. Learned counsels for the JDA have taken the Court through the history of the PRN scheme and have placed strong reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Suo Moto vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6709/2002; decided on 29.10.2010) and judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sugan Singh (supra) to submit that the endeavour of both the Division Bench and Co-ordinate Bench was to ensure the planned development of PRN Scheme strictly in conformity to the provisions of law.

11. Highlighting the intricate history of the PRN Scheme, learned counsels for the JDA submits that the land was acquired for the scheme to establish a residential colony. The said acquisition was challenged by several people, but the acquisition was upheld both by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Scheme however faced a lot of implementation challenges on account of the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings and the fact that a few housing societies formulated their own schemes and allotted plots to the people. At one stage, the State government decided to de-acquire the land vide order dated 23.09.2002, a decision which was stayed by Division Bench of this Court by taking suo moto cognizance. The order 23.09.2002 was subsequently withdrawn and the Division Bench thereupon decided suo moto petition vide order dated 29.10.2010 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6709/2002 confirming acquisition of land and vesting it in the government. A further direction was also given to carry out planned development of the area. A restraint order was also passed against construction apart from continuing other interim orders passed from time to time in suo moto petition. One such interim order was a clarificatory order dated 07.08.2008 which clarified that the restrain order(s) passed in suo moto petition was against the building activities and not against the JDA to take necessary steps to develop the area. Thereafter, due to mushroom growth of PRN scheme in a haphazard manner, the government introduced a policy for allotment of government land to the persons who are already in possession of the land and the amount collected from such allotment by the JDA was to be used for development of PRN Scheme. This move of the government was again challenged in the case of Sugan Singh (supra) by the allottees of PRN Scheme who contended that this exercise of the government was nothing but regularization of encroachment by land grabbers. However, the Court refused to interfere in the policy decision of the government but granted relief to those allottees who had deposited the due amount in pursuance of the draw of lottery. It was in this context that the condition F was imposed, so as to ensure that the restrain orders remain effective and that planned development of PRN Scheme can take place.

12. Learned counsels for the JDA have also highlighted that till date about 62,454 lease deed/pattas have been issued by the JDA in PRN Scheme which has generated a revenue of about Rs. 162165.77 lakhs. It is contended that the lease deed/pattas on the other plots have not been issued for a variety of reasons, such as plot/construction being located in facility area; in close proximity to high tension line; dispute between khatedars and housing societies; overlapping and multiplicity of different plans; commercial activities being carried out at residential plots; multiple society pattas of same plot; construction on public road etc. Learned counsels for the JDA contends that if the present misc. application is allowed and electricity connections are released to any one and everyone, no one will cure the deficiencies pointed out and apply for lease-deed/patta thereby affecting not only the revenue to the tune of approximately Rs. 456 crores, but also the planned development of the PRN scheme as directed by both Division Bench & Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

13. Learned counsels for the JDA further submits that the petitioners can always get the deficiencies cured and thereafter apply for lease deed/patta and get the electricity connection in accordance with law. So far as the applicant-JVVNL is concerned, it is contended that the misuse or theft of electricity cannot be a ground to review/modify the order dated 05.07.2013, which has attained finality, as the Discom should ensure that strict action is taken against anyone involved in theft of electricity as the Electricity Act, 2003, which is a self-contained code, provides them with ample powers to penalize and prosecute the offences contained therein.

14. Answering the query of this Court, learned counsel for the JDA also filed an affidavit to clarify that the Law Secretary for the State of Rajasthan or Director (Law) of JDA did not participate in the meeting held on 03.05.2023, presided over by the Chief Secretary for the State of Rajasthan, nor did they tender any opinion in writing. However, it is clarified that the affidavit was filed without prejudice to the stand of the State Government or that of JDA taken in the meeting conducted on 03.05.2023.

ANALYSIS

15. Heard the arguments advanced by all the sides, scanned the record, and considered the judgments cited at Bar.

16. It is noted that judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013, of which modification/review is sought, has attained finality since the same was never appealed. Before proceedings to the merits of the case, it is important to note that the lis in question arises out of misc. application seeking modification in order dated 05.07.2013 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. While entertaining such application, this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of Co-ordinate Bench. Regardless of the consensus of the parties, this Court can only interfere with the order of Co-ordinate Bench of equal strength when there is an ex- facie manifest and apparent error leading to grave injustice. The misc. application seeking modification or review cannot be an appeal in disguise to substitute the view of the Court.

17. In this background, it is also important to note that the entire controversy regarding the PRN Scheme, which has had a chequered and troublesome history, was considered not only by the Co-ordinate Bench, but also by the Division Bench of this Court in Suo Moto vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6709/2002) and only thereafter consistent orders were passed to ensure planned development of the PRN scheme. The pith and substance of the orders in suo moto proceedings in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6709/2002 as well as the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 is to ensure the planned development of PRN Scheme. On that aspect, this Court, not being the Court of Appeal, cannot diverge with the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013.

18. With that being the case, what remains to be determined is whether allowing this misc. application along with other connected writ petitions and relaxing the condition imposed vide condition F would go against the tenet of planned development of PRN scheme.

19. Coming first to the misc. application filed by the applicant- JVVNL. The applicant-JVVNL had initially accepted the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 and had accordingly passed restraint orders dated 22.12.2014 and 24.12.2014. The said restraint orders are reproduced as under:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

It is also noteworthy that the applicant-JVVNL had once previously moved an application seeking identical relief in 2016, but the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 04.04.2017 in S.B. Writ Misc. Application No. 338/2016. Thereafter, the present misc. application was filed in the year 2019 seeking modification of order dated 05.07.2013, i.e. with a substantial delay of about six years. No sufficient and/or satisfactory explanation was furnished for this inordinate delay. Surprisingly, when different instrumentalities of the State were at cross, the applicant-JVVNL even filed a vague application (IA No. 1/2022) for withdrawal of the misc. application altogether as the State Government decided ‘not to press the application at this stage’.

20. In the opinion of this Court, the misc. application filed by the applicant-JVVNL deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay & laches, acquiescence and estoppel alone, especially considering the office orders issued in 2014. Even on merits, it is observed that the applicant-JVVNL has sought review/modification on the ground of workability and operational difficulty and the review/modification is not sought strictly on merits. Review/modification on ground of operational difficulty, that too after a delay of six years, does not warrant consideration in the opinion of this Court, especially considering that the applicant is empowered under the Electricity Act, 2003 to take precautionary and punitive action against anyone who is engaged in unauthorized use of electricity.

21. The primary grievance of both the applicant-JVVNL and the petitioners is against the condition F of the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2023. It is important to emphasize that condition F in judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 should not be read in isolation and has to be read together with other directions and observations made therein. The directions issued have been quoted above (supra), but it is deemed necessary to reproduce the following extract from judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 as well:

“In the instant case, large developments has taken place. The demolition of thousand houses may not yield any result more so when the area in dispute is to be developed for residential purpose with other developments required for it. The impugned order makes a reference of demolition of construction and rehabilitation of those persons which otherwise obstruct development of roads etc. Thus, the effort of the State Government is not to compromise with the planned development, rather to maintain it. A balanced decision has been taken by the respondents and judicial review in such matters is very narrow. The interim order of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur v. Lekhraj Soni (supra) restricts regularisation or construction made in violation of master plan. The allotment by invoking Rules of 1974 is not barred.

It is no doubt unfortunate that the matter in reference to Prithvi Raj Nagar scheme remain under litigation for quite long time. The first litigation was to challenge acquisition followed by suo motu petition at the stage of de-acquiring the land in dispute. The ideal situation would have been if the suo motu petition could have been decided at the earliest followed by proper planned development of the area. If any development took place after the interim order of this court, as alleged, the government was expected to take a proper view for them or atleast impose penal charges. The material on record shows that many plot holders did not raise construction thus they are law abiding persons. In view of the above, while concluding the judgment, proper directions would be issued by this court.

The situation of the case can be viewed from the angle that if a direction is given to demolish thousands of building with a view to develop residential colony again, the end result would be nothing but wastage of energy and material. However, at the same time, planned development of the area cannot be sacrificed in the hands of encroachers and land grabbers and those who have raised illegal constructions.

In view of above, if impugned order is allowed to stand, respondents would be under an obligation to develop the area as per plan and not by compromising in the hands of encroachers or those who have raised illegal constructions. For planned development of roads, facility area etc, if it is having obstruction due to encroachments or constructions, appropriately it should be removed. The government would however be at liberty to rehabilitate those persons. The first argument thus cannot be accepted entirely but in part for which proper directions would be given in the concluding para of the judgment.

(emphasis supplied)”

Further, the relevant portion of suo moto proceedings order dated 29.10.2010 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6709/2002 is reproduced as under:

“At this stage, learned counsel Mr. K.K. Mehrishi representing few agriculturists and land holders, submitted that their valuable right are infringed on the acquisition of land or on a decision to withdraw the Notification for de-acquisition. At the very outset, he admitted that all those to whom he is representing fought their battle against the acquisition and lost therein up to the Apex Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was admitted by the counsel that so far as the acquisition is concerned, that has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court against them. It was further admitted that larger chunk of land belongs to them was sold to Housing Co-operative Societies.

He was asked as to whether any Housing Co- operative Society can have better right than the land holders. He fairly conceded on that and the transfer of land is otherwise restricted after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and if any transaction is made, then it is to be treated as void.

--

The outcome of the aforesaid is that land remains acquired with the affirmation of acquisition proceedings by the Hon'ble Apex Court and accordingly land vest in the State. The State would accordingly carry out planned development of the area strictly in conformity to the provision of law and till then maintain restrained order mentioned in this judgment.

(emphasis supplied)”

A combined reading of the directions along with the reasoning of the Court would reveal that the reason behind these directions was to ensure planned development of the PRN scheme; to penalize those who flouted restrain orders and raised construction; and to ensure that more encroachers do not take advantage of the vacant plots and raise illegal construction without allotment of plot. It also remains undisputed that the directions issued were for the benefit of public at large. Since these directions were in furtherance of the planned development of PRN Scheme, this Court, not being the Court of Appeal, cannot interfere with the same.

22. Coming to the various judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL, it is noted that the common rationale in all the judgments was a dispute between tenant and landlord of the property and the word occupier was also interpreted accordingly. Whereas, in the present case, the directions to not release electricity connection without proper allotment of plot were issued while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure planned development of PRN scheme. It is a well settled proposition of law that a Co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another Co- ordinate Bench of the same strength. Therefore, without commenting on veracity of directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench, the grievance against the said directions can only be entertained by Appellate Court and not by this Court. Furthermore, all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL are on the interpretation of the word ‘occupier’, whereas Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 encompasses not only ‘occupier’, but also ‘premises’ as supply of electricity can only be to premise entitled to receive supply of electricity. In the case at hand, enough reasons (plot/construction being located in facility area; in close proximity to high tension line; dispute between khatedars and housing societies; overlapping and multiplicity of different plans; commercial activities being carried out at residential plots, multiple society pattas of same plot; construction on public road etc.) have been provided by JDA for not issuing lease deed/patta and these reasons would also make the premises unentitled to receive supply of electricity. Learned counsel for the applicant-JVVNL along with learned counsels for the petitioners are also not correct in contending that the obligation cast upon the Discom by virtue of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is absolute. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the recent case of K.C. Ninan (supra), though in the context of pending dues, has specifically observed that the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not absolute. Therefore, the relied upon judgments, being distinguishable, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

23. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) dated 05.07.2013 and no interference is called for in the misc. application filed on behalf of the applicant-JVVNL.

24. The writ petitions filed by the purported occupiers of plots in PRN scheme, apart from the reasons already mentioned above, also calls for no interference on account of concealment and suppression of material facts. It is a well settled principle of law that one who seeks equity must also do equity. It is equally well settled that one who seeks to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts must come with not just clean hands, but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective, as these are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. A litigant is bound to make full and true disclosure of facts. Reliance in this regard can be placed on a catena of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, including Tilokchand H.B. Motichand and Ors. vs. Munshi and Anr.: (1969) 1 SCC 110 [LQ/SC/1968/360] ; A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam and Anr.: (2012) 6 SCC 430 [LQ/SC/2012/405] ; Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma: (1995) 1 SCC 421 [LQ/SC/1994/1067] ; Abhyudya Sanstha vs. Union of India and Ors.: (2011) 6 SCC 145 [LQ/SC/2011/723] ; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Anr.: (2011) 7 SCC 639 [LQ/SC/2011/713] ; Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and Anr.: (2011) 3 SCC 287 [LQ/SC/2011/128] ; Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. and Ors.: (2013) 2 SCC 398 [LQ/SC/2012/946] ; K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.: (2008) 12 SCC 481 [LQ/SC/2008/1382] ; Amar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.: (2011) 7 SCC 69 [LQ/SC/2011/711] ; Ramjas Foundation and Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.: (2010) 14 SCC 38 [LQ/SC/2010/1207] ; Anil Bansal vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal and Ors.: (2005) 9 SCC 368 [LQ/SC/2004/299] ; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.: (1994) 1 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/1993/933] ; A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Government of A.P. and Ors.: (2007) 4 SCC 221 [LQ/SC/2007/301] ; and K. Jayaram and Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors.: (2022) 12 SCC 815 [] .

25. The petitioners have concealed the fact that they were involved in theft/unauthorized use of electricity and the same was only revealed upon an inspection done by the Superintending Engineer (Vigilance) of applicant-JVVNL on 24.05.2023. The details of the petitioners engaged in the theft/unauthorized use of electricity are reproduced as under:

26. During the course of arguments, the erstwhile counsel for JVVNL, Mr. Jayanti Sahaya Gaur, appeared before this Court and submitted his grievance that he was compelled to give NOC in the matter, solely on account of certain legal opinions put fourth by him during the sustenance of the matter before the Court. It was further submitted that he was thereafter removed from the panel as well. A document to this effect has also been filed by Mr. Jayanti Sahaya Gaur. However, this Court, while hearing misc. application, can’t consider or comment upon the grievance of the erstwhile panel counsel. However, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to Mr. Jayanti Sahaya Gaur to raise his grievance before the Bar Council and before the learned Advocate General. Further, Mr. Jayanti Sahaya Gaur may also participate in the sou moto proceedings pending before Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan High Court Bar Association vs. Union of India (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1419/2023), wherein the issue of arbitrary appointment/removal of panel/government counsels is pending.

RESULT

27. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the firm view that if the condition F of the judgment of Sugan Singh (supra) were to be relaxed, the same would be against the tenet of planned development of PRN scheme, as directed by Co- ordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court, especially since it remains undisputed that the directions were passed in the larger public interest.

27. Accordingly, the misc. application is dismissed both on merits and on delay & laches, acquiescence and estoppel.

28. Similarly, the writ petitions are also dismissed, both on merits and on account of concealment of material facts.

29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.