1. Rule. Mr.Abhishek Mehta,learned advocate for M/S.Trivedi and Gupta waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application Nos.7850 of 2014,7853 of 2014 and 7854 of 2014, respectively. Respondent No.2 in the said petitions is the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, the orders of which are under challenge. Hence notice of Rule is not required to be issued to the said respondent. As the parties to the petitions are the same and common arguments have been addressed in the petitions, this Court proposes to decide the petitions by a common judgment, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The factual background in which the petitions have been filed, as culled out from the petitions and the documents on record, is as under:

Special Civil Application No.7850 of 2014: 2.1 The petitioner, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (‘”UGVCL “ for short), is a Distribution Licencee, as contemplated under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“The Act” for short). Respondent No.1 (“the respondent Company” for short) is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of Real Estate Development/Management. The respondent Company has initiated the work of a project in the name and style of “Shantikrupa”, on land comprising village Vansjada and Chekhla of Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad, which is spread over an area of approximately 160 Acres. The respondent Company is undertaking activities of construction and development in the said area. According to the respondent Company, the work of development/ construction has already taken four years and is likely to be continued for another few years and, therefore, can be considered to be perennial in nature. The respondent Company applied for a permanent connection of electricity of 300 KVA for the purpose of construction of building, vide an application dated 27-8-2010. By a letter dated 30-8-2010, the petitioner informed the respondent Company to contact the Executive Engineer at the Divisional Office, Bavla, in order to examine the technical feasibility and show the points of supply. Thereafter, by a communication dated 9-9-2010, the petitioner sought a clarification from the respondent Company regarding the Survey Numbers/ boundary. The petitioner informed the respondent Company that looking to the purpose, only a temporary connection can be granted to the respondent Company and that it should submit documents and details as mentioned in the letter.

2.2 On 15.10.2010, the petitioner sanctioned a 300 KVA temporary HT connection to the respondent Company. The respondent Company requested for the reduction of load from 300 KVA to 150 KVA and, therefore, the petitioner issued an estimate for Rs.4,93,367/-on 13.11.2010, which was paid by the respondent Company on 25.11.2010.

2.3 On 26.11.2010, the respondent Company addressed a letter to the petitioner seeking a permanent connection. This letter was replied to by the petitioner vide letter dated 11.01.2011, refusing the request of the respondent Company, inter alia, on the ground that Non Agricultural Use permission (NA permission) has not been taken in respect of some survey numbers and authentic ownership documents have not been submitted. It is stated in the said letter that until these discrepancies are not removed, the application for permanent connection cannot be processed. The respondent Company addressed a letter dated 01.12.2010 to the petitioner, objecting to its action of releasing a temporary connection, despite the fact that the respondent Company had made a request for a permanent connection. As the respondent Company was not agreeable to the action of the petitioner in releasing a temporary connection, it approached respondent No.2-Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (“the CGRF” for short), vide Case No.UG-03-020-2011-12. The application of the respondent Company was disposed of by the CGRF vide order dat