JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate Ms.Lilu Bhaya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though thus Court had cautioned learned advocate Mr.Dave as to whether he would invite an order on merits in wake of an alternative remedy, he has chosen to invite order on merits rather to avail alternative remedy.

2. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following reliefs:

“22b. Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction holding that the refusal to grant new connection of electricity by the respondent No. 1 and 2 to the petitioner on 25/03/2022 is bad in law and therefore the same may be struck down and Your Lordships be further pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 and 2 to grant the electricity connection to the petitioner immediately.

c. Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 and 2 to grant the electricity connection to the petitioner immediately during pendency of admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition on such terms and conditions as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.”

2.1 Thus, the petitioner is seeking direction from this Court upon the respondent No.1 to grant new connection of electricity.

3. Being aggrieved by the communication dated 25.03.2022, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. By the said communication, the application of the petitioner for connection of the electricity is refused in view of dues of the erstwhile occupant.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Dave appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned communication is required to be set aside since the petitioner-Company is asked to pay the dues of the erstwhile occupant of the plot of GIDC, for which the petitioner cannot be held liable.

5. The brief facts of the case are as under:

5.1 The petitioner-Company has been allotted a plot being No.C1B-3411 at GIDC, Ankleshwar by the office order dated 01.11.2021, for which they applied for electric connection on 02.03.2022 from the respondent No.2. The same was rejected by the authority. Earlier, the said plot was allotted to the respondent No.5 and he had secured the electric connection from the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) i.e. the erstwhile electric company of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.5 had some unpaid electricity bills and, therefore, the GEB instituted Special Civil Suit No.64 of 1995 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar. The suit was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2006.

5.2 It is the case of the petitioner-Company that they have received the property from the respondent No.3 and not from the respondent No.5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any action for recovery of the decreed amount from the respondent No.3.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Dave has submitted that the respondents have no jurisdiction to cut the connection for the reason that erstwhile owner being M/s.Gujarat Industries has not paid the amount of due electricity bill. It is submitted that no recovery has been initiated against the said owner. It is submitted that the respondent had also instituted a suit against M/s.Gujarat Industries being Special Civil Suit No.64 of 1995, which was decreed in favour of the respondent-Board by the judgment dated 03.11.2006, wherein the petitioners therein were authorized and entitled to recover an amount of Rs.20,23,112.82/- from the defendant with interest @ 24% and clarified that it is always open for the respondent-Board to file execution proceedings to recover the amount from M/s. Gujarat Industries instead of the present petitioner-Company. He has submitted that initially, the plot belongs to the GIDC and dues are in personam, which cannot be enforced against the petitioner-Company and hence, the respondents may be directed to grant new connection to reconnect the electricity.

7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Ms.Bhaya has submitted that the writ petition is not maintain