In CIVIL REVISION-7274-2018 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC directs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited to immediately restore electricity supply to AGM Mall, Gurdaspur Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan [19-07-2022]

Read Order: Executive Officer Municipal Council Gurdaspur v  M/s Miraj Entertaining Private Limited and others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 28, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has directed the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited to immediately restore electricity connection at the premises of AGM Mall, Gurdaspur. 

The electricity connection was cut in view of the cancellation of the NOC granted by Municipal Council Gurdaspur to the plaintiff regarding the construction of the said mall and also considering the suspension of the license of the plaintiff-firm for running the three screen cinemas, by the Commissioner, Gurdaspur. 

The bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan held, “… the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court directing the respondent to restore the connection is upheld and the PSPCL is directed to restore the electricity connection, immediately.”

Essentially, the second plaintiff was carrying out business of running and operating Cinemas in Punjab and other States of India. It constructed 5 storied building with basement and further with collaboration of the the first plaintiff erected 3 screens multiplex cinema within the premises of AGM Malls Private Limited. 

Primarily, it was the case of the plaintiffs that the above project was completed after required NOCs from the concerned departments and the provisions of application laws were abided by. 

However, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur suspended the licence of the plaintiff-firm for running the three screen cinemas as in terms of certain letters issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Gurdaspur, the NOC issued in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled/withdrawn. 

Against this background, the plaintiffs filed a  civil suit for Declaration, mandatory and Permanent Injunction, wherein application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed praying for staying the operation of the order of said order of cancellation or withdrawal.

As per the case of the defendants, there were building violations of rules/bye-laws of the Municipal Council stating that the construction was raised by not following the sanctioned plan.

The trial Court while deciding the application observed that the objections raised by the defendants regarding the violation of the building plans could not be decided at the state of deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as the Court, prima facie, has to see whether the interim relief can be granted in terms of the pleadings of the parties. 

The trial Court further observed that though the defendants issued show cause notice to the plaintiff regarding the violations but without affording an opportunity of hearing, the suspension of license or withdrawal of NOC was not permitted and, therefore, the trial Court directed the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs or demolish the building illegally and forcibly, except in due course of law till the decision of the suit. 

It was further directed that if the defendants find that there was any violation of the bye-laws of the Municipal Committee, the defendants, after giving the notice of being heard, can proceed.

However, the trial Court further held that the Court cannot restrain the defendant from taking action against the plaintiff for the violation of the bye-laws of the Municipal Committee. Accordingly, the trial Court declined the interim relief regarding revival of license or issuance of direction for electricity connection to the building of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The appellant court held, 

“Hence, appeal stands allowed and application… under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is allowed in toto… it is ordered that till the pendency of suit the operation of order… passed by Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur will remain stayed in the manner that defendants are restrained from acting upon it and further defendants are restrained from creating any sought of interference in the functioning and working of plaintiffs. Further respondents No.6 to 10 are directed to supply the electric connection to plaintiff after deposit of requisite fees within 10 days from today.” 

Hence, assailing the above decision of Appellate Court, two separate revision petitions were filed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Gurdaspur and second by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others. 

The revision petitions are pending since 2019 and a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the Additional Commissioner-II, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh-cum-Chief Fire Officer, Chandigarh to visit and inspect the suit property and submit a detailed report regarding the fire safety norms. Upon receipt of the report, the same official was directed to conduct a reinspection and submission of a fresh report.

Also, it came to the forefront that, it the Punjab One Time Voluntary Disclosure and Settlement of Building Constructed in Violation of Building Bye-Laws, 2019 under which the respondents-plaintiffs applied for compounding of building violation was under challenge before the High Court and the same is now pending.

In pursuance of an order of the Court, Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Punjab filed an affidavit and a report regarding the alleged violation of the building by taking a constructive, pragmatic and holistic view of the entire case.

It came out in these reports that the present building suffered from numerous violations of various serious nature and, most dangerous being tempering of the load bearing structure was reported.  In view of these findings, it was opined that the AGM Mall cannot be allowed to be operated and it is not found a fit case to be taken up and considered even under the Punjab One Time Voluntary Disclosure and Settlement of Buildings constructed in violation of the Building Bye-laws Act, 2019.

It was the case of the Counsel for the petitioner-Municipal Council, Gurdaspur that in view of the shortcomings in the report submitted by the Senior Town Planner and Director Local Government, Punjab, the impugned order was liable to be set aside as the case of the respondent-plaintiff was not found fit under the Punjab One Time Voluntary Disclosure and Settlement of Buildings constructed in violation of the Building Bye-laws Act, 2019.

It was further argued that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur earlier issued a license under the provisions of the Punjab Cinema Regular Act, 1952 in 2017. However, later on, an information was received that without obtaining the NOC, the aforesaid letter was issued and, therefore, the license of the plaintiff was suspended under Section 8 of the 1953 Act.

The Counsel for the petitioner (Punjab State Power Corporation Limited- PSPCL) additionally argued that since the communication was sent by the Municipal Council, Gurdaspur regarding withdrawal of the license, the electricity connection was also withdrawn and, therefore, no action of the PSPCL was illegal as the same was done by following the proper procedure and as per the instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur. And, that in the absence of an NOC from the competent authority the electricity connection cannot be released.

In reply, it was argued that the Deputy Commissioner already withdrew the letter of 2017 issued by the Municipal Council, Gurdaspur as well as the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner suspending the license. It was also argued that once the said letters were withdrawn, the PSPCL in terms of the order passed by the lower Courts was   bound to restore the electricity connection and that on account of interim stay for the last four years due to pendency of revision since 2018, the plaintiff was unable to run his business and was suffering heavy financial losses.

It was also argued that the Mall became operational after passing of the order in 2018  by the lower appellate Court and it was only after the interim order was passed by this Court, the business stopped. The Counsel also added that the action of the respondent was not in the public interest and the larger interest of the State of Punjab as the Mall, if permitted to run, will generate revenue in the shape of GST as well as by providing employment to hundreds of people.

After hearing the parties, the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court directing the respondent to restore the electricity connection, was upheld by the High Court and the PSPCL was directed to restore the electricity connection, immediately.
“However, in terms of order passed by a co-ordinate Bench that certain shortcoming are reported, as per the report dated 26.12.2020, it will be appropriate to direct the trial Court to decide the main suit expeditiously within a period of six months from today by giving three opportunities each to both the petitioners to lead their respective evidence”, held the Bench.