JUDGMENT :

1. All these petitions raise a common question – Whether a distribution licensee can compel a consumer of electricity who has separate connections as an HT Consumer can be compelled to merge his connections as one by operation of Clause 4.1.17 and/or Clause 4.28 of the Electricity Code, 2005. The other consequential question in addition to this that arises in some petitions is whether it is open for the Electricity Company to issue notices for payment of tariff on the basis of consumption of energy calculated as if merger is in force and assess amounts beyond a period of three years.

2. Facts of each Special Civil Application are set out as under:

Special Civil Application No. 17582 of 2017

2.1 Prayers in the petition read as under:

(A) Issue writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the bills at Annexure A and B and the order of the respondent No. 2 at Annexure – H and further command the respondent No. 1 to complete the merger of electric connection No. 39255 with 39222 within such time as the Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate and restrain the respondent No. 1 from raising supplementary bills.

(AA) Direct the respondent No. 1 to refund to the petitioner an amount of Rs.73,84,132.12 + 8,66,689.10 totalling to Rs. 82,50,821.22 along with interest @ 13% from the date of payment of the same till realization.

(III) Quash and set aside the supplementary bill at Annexure V and restrain the respondent No. 1 from coercively recovering any amount in respect of the supplementary bill at Annexure V.

(IV) Command the respondent No. 1 to merge of electric connections Nos. 39255 and 39222 expeditiously and within such time as the Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate and further restrain the respondent No.1 from raising any supplementary bills in respect of electric connection No. 39255, 39222 and 40744 on the grounds of non-merger thereof.

2.2 Facts as per the petition are as under:

2.3 The petitioner was allotted plot no. 129/a in Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC), Ankleshwar. Similarly, for the purpose of Unique Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Unique) and IFIUNIK Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (IFIUNIK), were allotted plots no. 128/1 and 128/1/1 respectively by GIDC, Ankleshwar. the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) granted 3 electric connections bearing connection nos. 39222, 39255 and 39271 to the petitioners Unique and IFIUNIK respectively. the said companies were carrying on business separately until November 2000.

2.4 On 08.11.2000, the Bombay High Court passed an order in Company Petition No. 869 of 2000 whereby Unique and IFIUNIK were ordered to be merged into the petitioner. Pursuant to the merger the connection nos.39222 and 39255 were transferred in the name of the petitioner.

2.5 On 22.01.2008, the petitioner vide its letter requested the respondent no. 1 to discontinue electric connection no. 39271. On 09.02.2011, the petitioner requested for a new connection for plot no. 128/1/1 and the respondent no. 1 granted new connection no. 40744 for the said plot no. 128/1/1.

2.6 The respondent no. 1 for the first time vide letters dated 07.03.2014 and 21.04.2014 informed the petitioner inter alia asking it to merge all the three connections into one connection. the petitioner relied on clause 4.1.17 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

2.7 On 07.05.2014, the petitioner replied to the said letters dated 07/03/2014 and 21/04/2014 to the respondent No.1 interalia pointing out that the said clause 4.1.17 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 was not applicable to the petitioner. the said letter dated 07/05/2014 of the petitioner was not replied to by the respondent No.1.

2.8 On 24.09.2015, the Electricity Supply Code, 2015 came into force wherein clause 4.28 was akin to clause 4.1.17 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

2.9 On 06.01.2016 and 25.01.2017, the respondent No.1 carrie