The duty of the electricity company to provide electricity supply as per Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the corresponding obligation to supply to the owner or occupier of the premises who applies for the same.

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the request of learned advocates for the parties, the petition was taken for final consideration.

1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1, whereas learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. By filling the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent No. 2 Electricity company to reconnect electric supply of the petitioner at his consumer No. 35838/00/135/6.

3. The aforesaid electricity connection at petitioner's place remained out of use since sometime, apparently on account of a civil dispute relating to the petitioner and private respondents herein, with respect to use of the land and rights asserted in that regard by the parties. The private respondents have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 56 of 2003 against the present petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction before the court of Civil Judge, (J.D.), Vanthal. In that suit, the Civil Court has by passing interim order dated 29th March, 2004 below Exh. 5 & Exh. 61, restrained the defendant-petitioner herein from obstructing the supply of water from the field of defendant bearing Survey No. 9/1 and 9/3 to the plaintiff's field, Survey No. 36. This water is flown to the plaintiff's field through submersible pump, run through the aforesaid electricity connection at the petitioner's field. It is stated by the petitioner that in view of said interim order, he is obliged to restart the electricity connection and the supply, so as to ensure and not to obstruct the water going to plaintiff's field for his use.

3.1 It further appears that the petitioner faced proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A, CPC, pursuant to the aforesaid interim injunction, in which he was held to have committed the breach and was ordered to be sent to prison. That order was confirmed as petitioner's Civil Misc. Appeal No. 72 of 2011 was also dismissed. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 18192 of 2010 before this court to challenge the order passed in the aforesaid Misc. Appeal. The petitioner filed an undertaking in that proceedings to the effect that the petitioner shall comply with the order of injunction dated 29th March, 2014. The said petition is pending.

3.2 The trouble for the petitioner started thereafter. He made an application dated 29th June, 2015 to the respondent Electricity Company requesting to re-connect the electricity supply stating that the same was not in orderly condition and needed repair to re-start the supply. It was further stated by the petitioner in his letter dated 2nd July, 2015 that the repair and re-supply was needed urgently, as there were orders of the court injuncting the petitioner for supply of water through his filed. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the above, the Electricity company sat tight not to pay heed to the petitioner's legitimate request. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's only request was to restart the supply of electricity at his existing consumer number so that he can obey the injunction by causing the flaw of water through the pump run and operated through electricity supply at his existing consumer installation. It was stated that the petitioner has already paid necessary fees of 940/- for the same. Learned Advocate further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to fulfill necessary requirements and abide by the condition(s) of restoration of supply of electricity. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the personnel of the company had come to the place/small room at his field to re-connect, but did not complete the task.

4.1 Respondent No. 1 company filed its affidavit-in-reply and stated as under,

"On 29.06.2014 petitioner has paid Rs. 940/- for r