ORDER D.K. Seth, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Geeta Pumps Provate Limited for quashing the order dated 5th May, 1998 contained in Annexure 28 passed by the learned District Judge, Saharanpur in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1998.
2. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by reason of an earlier decree passed in suit No. 380 of 1992, the petitioner is entitled to continuous supply of electrical energy to be made by respondent No. 2 through its officers, but the same having not been complied with, the decree was put into execution. Against the decree passed in suit No. 380 of 1992, Civil Appeal No. 32/1998 was preferred by the respondent-defendant. By an order, dated 23-4-1998, further proceedings of the execution case No. 4 of 1998 was stayed. Thereupon, the petitioner had filed an application for vacating the said order of stay, which was disposed of by an order dated 5-5-1998 since been challenged in this writ petition. By the said order, hearing of the said application for vacating interim order was deferred to some other date and while deferring the hearing, the Court had observed that partial stay of the execution proceedings cannot be granted and therefore the prayer for partial stay was rejected. This order, according to Mr. Jain, cannot be sustained since the prayer was very modest. Inasmuch as upon application under Order 21, Rule 32(5) of the Code, the Court having found the officers responsible for non-performance of the decree should be punished, an order for civil prison as well as attachment was issued. The petitioner had prayed that so far as the order for civil prison and attachment is concerned, the same may remain stayed but so far as continuous supply of electricity to the petitioner should be maintained. According to him, the Court ought to have granted this prayer. Since this will entail irreparable loss and injury on the running of the factory of the petitioner, therefore, supply of the factory of the petitioner, therefore, purpose of not only allowing the petitioner to run his factory but also for the purpose of boosting economy of the country as well as the workers working in the factory.
3. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand contends that the matter does not appear to be so simple and there are as many as 9 cases between the petitioner and the respondent. According to him, the matter requires a thorough probe as to entitlement of the petitioner to the relief claimed since according to him the petitioner is taking advantage of the judicial process which has been brought into being through sheer abuse of the process of law. Therefore, he seeks that this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 and exercise its power of superintendence to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of its jurisdiction and guide the Courts properly and also to see that the judicial process is not abused and disrepute is not brought upon on the judicial system by misusing its process to such extent as is the case in the present one. He further contends that in exercise of such jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court should call for the records of each of the suits between the parties so as to do complete justice and settle the dispute between the parties. While so contending, Mr. Agarwal also submits that by virtue of agreement between the respondent and the petitioner, the respondent is bound to supply electricity to the petitioner, under its statutory obligation under the Indian Electricity Act 1910, .Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Therefore, according to him, his client is, ready, agreeable and prepared to maintain supply of electricity to the petitioner in terms of the agreement even irrespective of the decree. He further contends that the decree as it stands does not give any additional advantage to the petitioner which also requires the respondents to supply electricity in terms of the agreement which the respondent is bound to do and is under statutory obligation to do the same. Mr. Agarwal submits that his clients are ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement as well as to comply with the decree passed in suit No. 380 of 1992. On these grounds though he is supporting the order dated 5-5-1998, yet he claims that he is prepared to maintain supply of electricity to the petitioner.
4. Thus, it appears that there is ad idem between Mr. Jain and Mr. Agarwal with regard to supply part of the order which since been refused by the appeal Court in its order dated 5-5-1998. It also appears that Mr. Jain had not asked anything more at this stage. Now Mr. Agarwal submits that in order to ensure this supply, the respondents need to take certain steps. According to him, the supply system has now become extremely sophisticated by reason of recent computerised devices which has since been used in the area, from where the petitioner is receiving such supply. Therefore, the supply system through which the petitioner is being supplied energy needs to be renovated and computerised in order to ensure better service. He therefore submits that he should be permitted to introduce new sophisticated computerised metering system to ensure better supply of electricity to the petitioner's factory and its sister concerns by installing 11 K.V. independent feeder line instead of supplying electricity from the existing old mixed feeder line through which many other consumers are being catered to.
5. In order to appreciate the situation, it would be necessary to refer to the facts revolving the dispute between the petitioner and respondent giving rise to as many as 9 suits in between them. It would not be necessary in the interest of justice to compel the petitioner to run from post to piller in order to enforce his rights under the agreement and contest as many as 9 suits only for the single purpose and entire justice should be delivered instead of compelling the petitioner to fight out so many litigations. In the interest of preventing multiplicity of the proceedings, it is bounden duty of the Court to see that the relief sought may be made available to him, if possible, even by consolidating all the proceedingslf it is so necessary.
6. It would he useful for the present purpose to briefly refer to the facts relating to the entire dispute involving the parties in the present proceedings. The said facts may be summarised in the following manner :
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was an old consumer of the respondent. Subsequently, a fresh agreement was entered on 2-12-1991 between the parties for supplying electricity of 940 KVA electrical load, which is now existing agreement between the parties. This agreement has replaced the old agreement through which supply of electricity used to be made to the petitioner. This fact is not disputed by Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner had been making complaints about erratic supply of electricity to the respondents, therefore, the respondents proposed to lay a 11 KV feeder line to supply electricity to the petitioner. However, by filing suit No. 685 of 1991, the petitioner sought injunction restraining the Electricity Board from laying 11 KV feeder line for supplying electricity to the petitioner. In the suit, an ad interim injunction was granted restraining the Electricity Board from laying 11 KV feeder line. The said interim order is still subsisting. Thereafter the petitioner on 18-6-1992 (sic) filed O.S. No. 380 of 1992 before the same Court being the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sharanpur seeking permanent injunction directing the Electricity Board to supply electricity every day for 24 hours in all three phases subject to the conditions mentioned in the agreement and in the said suit, the petitioner obtained an ex parte injunction to the same effect. Thereafter on 11th August, 1992, the petitioner filed another suit (O.S. No. 490 of 1992) seeking mandatory injunction directing the Electricity Board to supply electricity continuously every day 24 hours in all three phases subject to the circumstances/expressions contained in the agreement and not to create any obstruction therein. In the said suit also, the petitioner obtained interim injunction to the effect that in the meantime the defendants are restrained by mains of temporary injunction that the supply of electricity to the plaintiff shall be made available regularly on the condition of load and there shall not be interference of any kind in continuity in all the three phases. Thereafter, on 25th August, 1992 the petitioner filed O.S. No. 514 of 1992 seeking mandatory injunction directing the Electricity Board not to replace the existing meter unless and until its correctness is verified under the orders of the Court and in case of replacement, meter of the same company and same type be installed after getting it tested through an approved laboratory and till then to maintain status and to continue the electric connection. In this suit also the petitioner obtained an ex parte injunction restraining the Electricity Board from checking or replacing the meter by taking police help and to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the petitioner himself got its meter tested on 6-9-1993 by the Electrical Inspector who submitted his report on 22-9-1993 to the extent that the said meter is 12.35955% fast and therefore recommended replacement of the meter. On 9-11-1993, the concerned Executive Engineer required the petitioner to allow him to change the meter on the basis of the report of the Electrical Inspector. On 11-11-1993 the petitioner allegedly disallowed the Executive Engineer from changing the said meter. On 22-11-1993, a fresh request by the Executive Engineer was made for replacement of the meter but this was not allegedly acceded to by the petitioner. Thereafter on 31-5-1994 O.S. No. 255 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner seeking injunction directing the Electricity Board not to replace existing electric meter at his premises till its correctness is tested at National Laboratory, Panipat and with the permission and approval of the Court and till then to maintain status quo. In the said suit, the petitioner obtained an ex parte injunction restraining the Electricity Board from replacing the meter till the existing meter is tested by the National Laboratory, Panipat, in presence of the official of Director Electrical Safety, Lucknow and to present the report in Court and till then refrain from replacing the meter. On 16-12-1994 the Electricity Board filed objection against the ex page injunction passed in suit No. 255 of 1994, The said objection was rejected and the ex parte injunction order was confirmed. Thereupon, against the said order dated 16-12-1994 passed in Suit No. 255 of 1994. Misc. Appeal No. 163 of 1994 was preferred by the Electricity Board. By an order dated 24-4-1995 the interim injunction granted on 18-6-1992 in O.S. No. 380 of 1992 was confirmed directing the Electricity Board to maintain 24 hours continuous supply to the petitioner. By an order dated 18-9-1995 passed in O.S. No. 514 of 1992, ex parte injunction order dated 25-8-1992 was vacated when on the date fixed the petitioner had sought for adjournmerm Ultimately, the said order dated 18-9-1995 was recalled and the interim injunction passed in O.S: No. 514 of 1992 which was vacated by the order dated 18-9-1995, was restored on the condition that the petitioner shall not seek further adjournments. The said interim order is still continuing, though in the meantime 15 more adjourments have been sought by the petitioner. On 6-8-1997 the petitioner filed another suit being O.S. No. 409 of 1997 against the Electricity Board seeking an injunction directing the Electricity Board to allow the petitioner to pay arrears of additional security of Rs. 2,73,815/- in ten monthly instalments. In the said suit, the Court granted injunction permitting the petitioner to deposit only 1/4th of the arrears of additional security in the office of the Board and deposit security of the rest amount and stayed realisation of rest of the amount while restraining the Electricity Board from disconnecting the supply to the petitioner. Misc. Appeal No. 126 of 1996, filed against the interim order passed in O.S. No. 380 of 1992, was rejected, by an order 5-9-1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Saharanpur. In the meantime, sometimes in August, 1997 yet another suit being O.S. No. 411 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner seeking mandatory injunction restraining the Electricity Board and its officials from terminating the agreement dated 2-12-1991 and not to compel the petitioner to execute; a fresh agreement. Mr. Agarwal submits that in this case also according to his information ad interim order has been passed but copy of the said order having not been made available to him, he was unable to make any statement with regard thereto as well as with regard to the contents of such order. In December, 1997, yet another suit being O.S. No. 680 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner seeking mandatory injunction restraining, the Electricity Board from drawing over head 11 KV line in order to effect supply to the petitioner through 11 KV feeder. On 8-1-1998 O.S. No. 380 of 1992 was decreed by the learned trial Court by granting mandatory injunction to the Board to continuously supply electricity to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement till the agreement subsists. On 21-1-1998 O.S. No. 43 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner seeking mandatory injunction against the Electricity Board restraining it from disconnecting the petitioner's supply. In the Suit, the petitioner obtained ex parte injunction on the same terms as sought for Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1998 was filed on 19-2-1998 by the Electricity Board against the judgment and decree dated 8-1-1998 passed in O.S. No. 380 of 1992. On 21-2-1998 the petitioner's application dated 27-1-1998 in O.S. No. 255 of 1994 seeking ad interim mandatory injunction directing the Electricity Board to remove all additional lines, meter and cables, came up for consideration before the trial Court and the trial Court held that the Board's action in installing separate line and feeder of 11 KV was contrary to the order dated 16-12-1994 and 7-3-1995 passed in O.S. No. 255 of 1994 and the Misc. appeal and therefore directed the Electricity Board and its officials to remove the meter installed at the sub-station on 25-2-1998 and to inform the Court. The Court had also directed the Electricity Board to remove additional feeder line from the premises of the petitioner explaining the background of the order, Mr. Agarwal points out that since the Board had apprehensions about the quantum of electricity consumed by the petitioner, therefore, the Board had installed a meter in its own Sub-Station so as to monitor the supply through mixed feeder which not only concerning the petitioner but also many other consumers which are being catered through it. Against the said order dated 21-2-1998 passed in O.S. 255 of 1994, the Electricity Board filed Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1998. In the said appeal, by an order dated 2-3-1998 the appellate Court had stayed the operation of the order dated 21-2-1998 passed in O.S. No. 255 of 1994. On 17-3-1998 the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 8974 of 1998, whereupon the order dated 2-3-1998 has been stayed while directing the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal itself within the shortest possible lime. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 31-3-1998 dismissed the said appeal No. 40 of 1998 as not maintainable. The trial Court by an order dated 1-4-1998 passed in O.S. No. 255 of 1994, directed the Court Amin to disconnect the meter installed at the sub-station and feeder line and submit compliance report to the trial Court without damaging the meter or line. Purusant to the said order dated 1-4-1998 passed in O.S. No. 255 of 1994, the Court Amin removed the meter from the sub-station alter disconnecting electric supply to the petitioner and submitted alleged compliance report to the trial Court. On 6-4-1998 the petitioner filed an application in O.S. No. 255 of 1994 seeking direction for restoration of its supply as it was not restored when the meter from the sub-station was removed by the Court Amin and sought for supply through police help. On 7-4-1998, while issuing notice to the Electricity Board for filing objection, the Court directed the Court Amin to ensure restoration of electric supply to the petitioner's feeder. On 8-4-1998, the Court Amin submitted a report before the trial Court that certain persons at the sub-station misbehaved with him and his complaint was not entertained by the police. On 10-4-1998, the Court Amin filed an application under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Saharanpur seeking a direction to Police Station, Kolwali Dehat to register first information report and take suitable action. Since various ex parte orders were continuing as discussed above and objections were not disposed of by the trial Court, the Electricity Board had filed successive writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 12687 was filed by the Board seeking a direction to the trial Court to decide the injunction matter on merit in O.S. No. 490 of 1992. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10-4-1998 directing the trial Court to dispose of the mailer within a period of two months. Another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 13302 of 1998 was filed by the Electricity Board seeking direction to the trial Court to dispose of the interim injunction matter on merits in O.S. No. 409 of 1997. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 16-4-1998 with similar direction. Writ Petition No. 14253 of 1998 was filed by the Board seeking a mandamus directing the Civil Judge, Saharanpur to dispose of the objection filed by the Board against ex parte injunction order dated 25-8-1992 in O.S. No. 514 of 1992 on merits. This writ petition was disposed of on 23-4-1998 with similar direction. On 23-4-1992, the learned District Judge, Saharanpur in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1998, stayed execution case No. 4 of 1998 in respect of the trial Court's order dated 8-1-1998 passed in original suit No. 380 of 1992. Referring to the background of this order, Mr. Agarwal submits that the petitioner has filed an application in the execution case No. 4 of 1998, on which the Court had found by order dated 8-1-1998 that the officers of the Board were guilty for non compliance of the said order and therefore the order dated 8-1-1998 was issued directing the Board to supply continuous electricity to the petitioner, and awarding civil prison to the officers of the Board as well as issuing order of attachment against the Board. Another application against the Board and its officers for committing contempt for violation of the order dated 18-4-1998 passed in original Suit No. 255/94 was filed by the petitioner and for a direction to restore the petitioner's electric supply disconnected on 1-4-1998. On the application filed by the petitioner for modifying the order dated 23-
4-1998 passed in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1998 arising out of Original Suit No. 380 of 1992, the learned District Judge, Saharanpur directed the Board to install one meter at the entry point and one at the sending point. In the meantime the order dated 5-5-1998 since been impugned in this order has been passed.
8. Having regard to these backgrounds, it appears that successive suits have been filed by the petitioner claiming identical reliefs. The whole cause of action appears to be one and single. Filing of successive suits clearly indicates the sheer abuse of process of law. The same relief which has been sought to be obtained by multiplying the number of suits could have been obtained in the very said suit by means of appropriate application. Multiplicity of suits give rise to possibility of passing of contradictory orders and unnecessary increasing of number of proceedings between the parties. All the reliefs could be sought within the ambit of the frame of one suit since cause of action emanated from the agreement dated 2-12-1991 relating to supply of electrical energy to the petitioner within the scope and ambit of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and rules and regulations framed thereunder.
9. The only relief that was being sought for in all these suits instituted by the petitioner aim at securing supply of electricity to the petitioner. The only aim and object of the petitioner to approach the Court through so many suits was to secure the supply of electrical energy under the said agreement dated 2-12-1991. In view of the said agreement, the petitioner cannot claim any right outside the scope and ambit of the said agreement. Rights between the parties are governed by the said agreement. Admittedly, the said agreement is a statutory agreement. It there is anything which is not covered by the agreement in that event the same would be be covered by the provisions of the statutes operating in the field in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner therefore cannot claim any thing outside the scope and ambit of the said agreement as well as the provisions contained in the said two Acts and the rules and regulations framed thereunder.
10. Mr. Jain has also not put his claim and had very fairly contended that the right and the claim of the petitioner is comprehended within the scope and ambit of the said agreement and the Acts and the Rules and Regulations as referred to above and the petitioner expects the fulfilment of its rights under the said agreement as are available within the scope and ambit of the provisions of the statutes referred to above and he cannot put his claim beyond the scope and ambit of the agreement and law.
11. Mr. Agarwal at the same time very fairly contends that the Board is prepared to adhere to the agreement as it is required to be adhered to by the Board within the scope and ambit of the statute.
12. Admittedly, the Board is a creature of statute. It has no power outside the scope and ambit of the statute. Neither, it can act de hors the statute. All its activities arc confined within the provisions of the statute and agreement which is also a statutory agreement within the said statute. Therefore, in my view the Board is bound to act within the scope and ambit of the statute in order to honour the agreement dated 2-12-1991. Nothing has been pointed out by Mr. Agarwal or by Mr. Jain that there is anything contained in the agreement dated 2-12-1991 is outside the scope and ambit of the statute.
13. Mr. Agarwal contends that in order to adhere to the agreement and the provisions of statute, the Board had proposed that instead of effecting supply through mixed feeder line, even without asking for any expense for laying the line at the requisition of the consumer, it will lay 11 KV line through an independent feeder line in order to ensure better supply to the petitioner and such independent feeder line would cater to the need of the petitioner and its sister concern and it may not effect supply to any other consumer through the said feeder line so long as the petitioner and its sister concern continue to remain consumer through the said 11 KV feeder line. According to him this will secure the benefit of the petitioner since the supply will be made through an independent feeder instead of through mixed feeder line from which supply is effected not only to the petitioner but also to different consumers.
14. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot have any objection or opposition to such steps being taken by the Board. Under the statute the Board has the authority to do the same by virtue of Clause VI, Sub-rule (2) of the schedule to the Indian Electricity Act which provides that any service fine laid for the purpose of supply in pursuance of a requisition under Sub-clause (1) shall, notwithstanding that a portion of it may have been paid for by the person making the requisition, be maintained by the licencee (Board), who shall also have the right to use it for the supply of energy to any other person. Whether the consumer had paid for the whole or part or may not have paid for a portion thereof the Board has a right to use for supply of energy to any other person which as contended by Mr. Agarwal appears to have presently been forgone only to facilitate supply to the petitioner. The said Sub-rule (2) also requires the Board to maintain such supply line for the purpose of effecting supply to the petitioner. It is an admitted proposition that maintenance includes replacement, repair or installation of fresh line in order to ensure maintenance of supply of electrical energy. Thus the petitioner cannot claim any right against the Board to instal, maintain, replace any feeder tine for effecting supply to the petitioner. If he has no right, such right cannot be enforced through any legal process. Any order contrary there to would be wholly outside the scope and ambit of the statutory provisions as well as agreement and therefore cannot be enforced by any Court which would be thoroughly an order staring on the face of the statute is a clear contradiction in view of law governing the field.
15. The lines are maintained in order to ensure supply to the consumer. The consumer has a right to get the supply. He has no right with regard to the line and it cannot claim any right beyond the agreement between him and the Board. My attention has not been drawn to any terms and conditions in the agreement which is being admitted to be a violation by reason of installation of independent feeder line.
16. So far as the question of changing of meter is concerned, the same is governed by the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It makes it abundantly clear that if the consumer desires that his meter be tested through Electrical Inspector, the same may be done. In the present case the meter was so tested at the behest of the petitioner on 6-9-1993 by the Electrical Inspector who by his report had recommended for replacement of the petitioner's meter. Therefore, the petitioner has a right to get the meter replaced. The Board is also bound to replace the meter. Sub-section (4) of Section 26 of the said Act provides that the licensee has right to test such meter and may replace such meter. It is a duty, under Section 26 of Act, of the Board to maintain correct meter.
17. The petitioner cannot claim any right de hors the agreement and the statute. Nor he has any right to oppose the change of the meter. Even if he disputes in that event it is to be referred to Chief Electrical Inspector of State and not otherwise. There being an alternative remedy it is not open to the Court to intervene in such cases, which is clearly a technical matter. Supply of electricity is a highly technical affair which is beyond the apprehension of persons who are not acquainted with the electrical engineering or its system. These are technical matters which the Court should avoid interference. Therefore, there cannot be any right to the petitioner to prevent the Board to instal a meter at its sub-station. The petitioner cannot claim any right over sub-station or how the Board will'monitor its supply system. The Court cannot intervene with the statute empowering the Board to perform its duty relating to its own supply system. The petitioner is not being asked to pay on the basis of the meter reading at the sub-station. It is only for the purpose of the Board itself, such meter is being installed at the sub-station. Therefore, the petitioner having no right with installation of the meter at the sub-station, neither the same can be removed nor the Board can be prevented from installing and maintaining such meter at the supply station.
18. Since Section 26 requires to maintain a correct meter at the entry point, it is open to the Board to instal and maintain such meter at a place which can be visited by the officer of the Board at ease as provided in Regulation 21(1). Regulation 21(1) provides that the meter shall be ordinarily installed at the point of entry and in such manner as to make it easier and conveniently access to the supplier's representative for the purpose of reading and inspection. Therefore, the Board may ensure installation of such meter at any point at the entry to the premises of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner also cannot have any right outside the scope and ambit of the statute to keep the meter installed at a place of his choice. According to the scheme of the statutes, Acts and the Rules and Regulations, it is the choice of the Board as to where the meter should be installed. Therefore, it is open to the Board to instal a meter at the entry point selected by it in the premises of the petitioner.
19. Thus it appears that the process of law has been continuously abused by filing of successive suits as many as 9 arising out of the same cause of action between the same parties relating to the same supply and same agreement and several orders have been obtained which is very difficult to monitor and contest. It is equally difficult on the part of the petitioner to carry on with so many proceedings only to as certain its own right through the said agreement. Then again it appears that majority of the interim orders which have been passed right from 1992 onwards are still operating, and has not been vacated despite there being multiplicity of litigation between the same parties. At the same time, it appears that those orders which have been passed by way of interim orders are clearly in contradiction of the statutes and the rights claimed by the petitioner. It is abundantly clear that the Courts have exceeded its limit and jurisdiction in the given circumstances as discussed hereinbefore. Article 227 of the Constitution has conferred power on the High Court to exercise superintendence over the Courts subordinate to it. This jurisdiction has been given to the High Court to keep the subordinate Court within its bound and jurisdiction.
20. The scope and ambit of Article 227 vis-a-vis the power of superintendence of the High Court was considered in the case of Dava Ram alias Dalian v. IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Mirzapur (1), Om Prakash Rastogi v. Additional District Judge, Moradabad (2) and Arun Lata v. Civil Judge, Bulandshahr (3). Having regard to the ratio decided in these cases, in my view, the facts and circumstances of this case satisfies the ingredients attracting the application thereof. Thus in my view it is a fit case where such jurisdiction is to be invoked and I do invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to call for the records of all these 9 suits in connection with this writ petition namely Original Suit Nos. 380/1992 since pending in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1998 before the learned District Judge, Saharanpur along with that of Original Suit No. 685/91,490/ 91, 490/92,8 14/92, 255/94, 409/97, 411/97, 680/ 97 and 43/98. All these suits are alleged to have been pending before the one and the same Court learned Civil Judge, Junior, Division, Saharanpur.
21. Let the records of these suits be sent for this Court through special messenger at the cost of the Board which should be put in by tomorrow and the office shall not insist on production of copy of this order from the learned counsel for the Board. All the records should be made available before this Court on the next date fixed and this writ petition be listed on 21-7-1998 for further hearing in the supplementary cause list.
22. In the meantime, the operation of all the interim orders passed in all the suits shall remain stayed and that of the Civil Appeal No. 32 of the 1998 shall stand modified as hereinafter. The Board shall be at liberty to instai an independent 11 KV feeder line as well as instal a computerised meter at the sub-station/service station as well as at the entry point of the petitioner's premises to be selected by it upon giving 72 hours' notice to the petitioner. As soon as such notice is given Mr. Jain's client shall co-operate with the Board in the matter of installation of meter at the entry point of the petitioner by allotting site and constructing a meter room according to the specification of the Board. Such construction shall be done within a period not later than 15 days from the selection of the site which would be done within 48 hours after expiry of the 72 hours notice as aforesaid. Thereafter the Board shall ensure supply to the petitioner in terms of the agreement as contemplated under the Statute having regard to the relevant Government Order relating to restoration of the supply through such independent feeder line as may be decided by the. Board.
23. Till then the Board shall ensure restoration of existing supply to the petitioner after installing a meter at the supply point as well as at the entry point as early as possible but not later than Tuesday the 1st June, 1998.
This order shall be subject to the final order that may be passed in the writ petition.
Certified copy of operative portion of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges by tomorrow.