Executive Officer Municipal Council Gurdaspur vs. M/S Miraj Entertaining Private Limited & Ors

Facts

The petitioners, Executive Officer Municipal Council Gurdaspur and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), filed revision petitions challenging an order dated 3.8.2018 by the lower appellate court. This order modified a previous order and allowed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs. The respondents, M/s Miraj Entertaining Private Limited and others, had filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction. They claimed to have invested significantly in constructing a multiplex cinema, AGM Malls, on leased land after obtaining necessary sanctions and NOCs. However, their cinema license was suspended, and electricity connection was withdrawn. The respondents argued that the suspension of their license and withdrawal of electricity were illegal, causing them financial losses. The petitioners contended that the building had serious violations and that electricity could not be restored without an NOC from the Municipal Council.

Held

The Court upheld the findings of the lower appellate court directing the respondent (PSPCL) to restore the electricity connection immediately. The Court noted that the orders suspending the cinema license of the petitioner had been revoked. It also considered that after a show cause notice was issued to the Municipal Council, Gurdaspur, no further action was taken by them. In light of these facts, the direction to restore the connection was upheld. However, acknowledging that certain shortcomings were reported in a previous report dated 26.12.2020, the Court directed the trial court to decide the main suit expeditiously within six months, granting three opportunities each to both parties to lead their evidence. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the final determination of the building's compliance and the suit's merits were deferred to the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the lower appellate court erred in modifying the order dated 3.11.2017 and allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in toto, directing the restoration of electricity connection and cinema operations, despite alleged violations of building bye-laws and lack of NOC from the Municipal Council? Petitioner's arguments (Municipal Council and PSPCL): The petitioners argued that the impugned order was liable to be set aside due to shortcomings in reports concerning building violations. They contended that a cinema license was initially issued but later suspended due to lack of NOC, and consequently, the electricity connection was withdrawn following proper procedure and instructions. PSPCL further argued that electricity connection cannot be released without an NOC from the competent authority. They also pointed to an affidavit from the respondent's director relating only to partial completion. Respondent's arguments: The respondents argued that the Deputy Commissioner had withdrawn the letter suspending the cinema license and the order suspending it. Therefore, PSPCL was bound to restore the electricity connection as per the lower courts' orders. They highlighted that the petition was pending since 2018, causing significant financial losses due to the interim stay, and that the mall became operational after the lower appellate court's order. They also submitted that allowing the mall to operate would generate GST revenue and provide employment.