Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard Sri B.C.Rai and Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.9.2012 for release of electric supply from 33 KV Independent Feeder to respondent No. 3 and has further sought a writ of mandamus restraining the Purvaanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. from releasing electricity connection in favour of respondent No. 3 with the following prayers:

(I) issue a writ, or or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash the order dated 5.9.2012 in so far it direct to release electricity supply from 33 KV independent feeder known as Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited independent Feeder and Bay constructed at the cost of the petitioner and three other consumers (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) in ontradistinction to Clause 3.4 of Supply Code, 2005;

(II) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining the PVVNL from releasing electricity connection of respondent No. 3 from 33KV independent Feeder and Bay constructed at the cost of the petitioner and three other similarly situated consumers;

(III) issue such other and further writ, or or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the cirsumstances of the case; and;

(IV) to award costs throughout to the petitioner Company.

3. The petitioner, for establishing an induction furnace and Rolling Mill in the name and style of M/s Parasnath Alloys (Pvt.) Ltd., applied for sanction of 3200 KVA electric connection. For running of arc and induction furnace, the electricity is to be supplied through an independent feeder as per the provisions of clause 3.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 framed under Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

4. According to the petitioner, one M/s Shree Siddhbali Steels Ltd. for the same process has applied for 5500 KVA load sanction and agreed to bear the cost of establishing an independent feeder for the said purpose. It is submitted that one M/s Suresh Furnace Pvt. Ltd. and M/s V.V.A. Steels Pvt. Ltd. also applied for sanction of supply of 5600 KVA and 3200 KVA respectively. On 15.7.2009, the Divisional Engineer submitted a report that for supply of electricity for same process furnace and rolling mills can be provided through an independent feeder by providing a ‘bay’ on a 4 poles structure, the cost of which could be minimized by sharing of consumers of the same process. It is submitted that M/s Siddhbali steel Ltd. were sanctioned load of 5500 KVA on 2.4.2009 upon the condition that they will bear the entire cost of 33 KV independent feeder to be known as Siddhabali feeder. One M/s Suresh Furnace Pvt. Ltd. was sanctioned 5600 KVA load on 11.6.2009. On 15.9.2009, the petitioner was sanctioned 3200 KVA load through the same independent feeder known as Siddhbali feeder. On 12.6.2009 M/s V.V.A. Steel Pvt. Ltd. was also sanctioned load of 3200 KVA from the said Independent feeder through a bay on 4 poles structure. The petitioner submits that on the basis of the report of the Divisional Engineer dated 15.7.2009, the independent feeder was established upon sharing of the cost by M/s Shree Siddh Bali Steel Ltdf, M/s Suresh Furnace Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner and M/s V.V.A. Steel Pvt. Ltd.

5. The claim of the petitioner is that by virtue of sharing the cost of the Sidhabali independent feeder and its bay, no other tapping can be permitted in view of Clause 3.4 of the Electricity Code without the consent of the original consumer. The authority below by sanctioning supply with load of 2700 KVA to M/s Kumar Casting Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 3, have acted in violation of statutory provisions of Para 3.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. It is claimed that for running furnace and rolling mill which requires load up