Point of Law: It is clear that documents, which are referred to in the said clause, shall be considered as acceptable as proof of ownership or occupancy of the premises. The petitioner has produced the latest municipal tax receipts, wherein in column of occupation, word 'tenant' is mentioned but the fact remains that the said bill is for the subject property as observed hereinabove

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate, Mr. Harshad K. Patel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr. Dipak Dave for the respondent no.3 waives service of notice of Rule.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent no.3 be directed to grant fresh electricity connection to the petitioner in view of the application submitted by the petitioner.

3. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Bhoomi Thakore for the petitioner, learned advocate, Mr. Harshad Patel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr. Dipak Dave for the respondent no.3.

4. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition, learned advocates appearing for the parties have jointly requested that this petition be disposed of at an admission stage.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a registered Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. She submitted that on 30.05.2003, the petitioner entered into rent agreement with the private respondents and since last 14 years, the petitioner is in occupation and possession of the premises in question. She submitted that the dispute arose between the parties and, therefore, the petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No.708/2017 before the concerned civil court at Vadodara and along with the said suit, the petitioner has also filed an application, Exh.5 for injunction. It is submitted that the concerned civil court has passed an order dated 04.08.2018 below application, Exh.5 and thereby allowed the application filed by the petitioner for injunction and the private respondents are restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that the said order is not challenged by the private respondents before the higher forum.

6. At this stage, it is submitted that the electric connection was provided to the petitioner by the respondent, which had Meter Connection No.43670, Customer ID No.14528013835. It is submitted that on 05.02.2018, the respondent no.3 – Electricity Company has disconnected the power supply of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner filed an application vide Exh.16 before the concerned civil court for the grant of electric connection, however, the said application came to be dismissed by the civil court vide order dated 08.05.2018 on the ground that the present petitioner has not joined the Electricity Company as party defendant in the said civil suit. It is submitted that the petitioner, therefore, filed petition being Special Civil Application No.9891/2018 before this Court challenging the said order passed by the concerned civil court, wherein the direction was also sought that the respondent – Electricity Company be directed to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner. It is contended that this Court vide order dated 15.03.2019 disposed of the said petition with certain directions to the Electricity Company. The petitioner was directed to file an application for restoration of the electricity supply or for a fresh connection within stipulated time and the respondent no.3 was directed to consider the request in accordance with law and in accordance with the Supply Code. Learned advocate has referred to the said order, copy of which is placed on record at Page No.35.

7. Learned advocate, Ms. Thakore would further submit that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner submitted an application dated 16.04.2019 before the respondent no.3, thereafter, the documentary evidence were also supplied to the respondent no.3 including indemnity bond. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that by way of impugned communication dated 02.05.2019, the respondent no.3 has informed the petitioner that the petitioner has not produced the documentary evidence as per Clause 4.16 of the Supply Code. It is further stated that after such documents are supplied, appropriate decision will b