IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19780 of 2023 ==========================================================

FIROZBHAI ABDULBHAI AJMERI Versus MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED (MGVCL)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HARSH RAVAL for MR SHAHRUKHKHAN A PATHAN(13404) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JIGAR M PATEL(3841) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 08/04/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the occupier of plot Nos.47 and 47A, GIDC, Kansari, Taluka Khambhat, District Anand, in which, the petitioner is running the business of cotton in the name of Hindustan Cotton Works since 2001. The learned counsel submits that the business of the petitioner is registered on the said property and the petitioner also pays the commercial tax and GST bills. He submits that the original owners, from whom the petitioner purchased the plots, approached the respondent company by preferring an application dated 18.05.2023 for discontinuation of the electricity connection on the said plots and resultantly, the electricity connection has been discontinued. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner made an application dated 07.07.2023 by paying Rs.27,985/- for providing new electricity connection, but the respondent company has rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner must show the ownership on the said property. By the communication dated 20.07.2023, the respondent has also required the petitioner to provide the proof of his ownership. He submits that by the communication dated 20.09.2023, the petitioner stated that no proof of ownership is needed and he also furnished the bond and undertaking in accordance with the Electricity Supply Code for seeking new electricity connection. He submits that on 04.10.2023, it was orally informed to the petitioner to provide the proof of ownership and also take his money back as no electricity connection can be granted. He submits that it is the duty of the respondent to supply the electricity to the occupier of the premises and the petitioner is in legal possession and occupation of the premises. He submits that there is no reason for the respondent to deny the electricity connection to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that it is well settled that the electricity authority has to examine whether the applicant for the electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question or not. He submits that the present Special Civil Application be allowed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent electricity company submits that since the petitioner has failed to produce the proof of ownership, the respondent company has denied the electricity connection to the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the decision taken by the respondent is just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

4. Considered the submissions of the parties and perused the documents on record.

5. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads thus :-

“43. Duty to supply on request.–

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission:

Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may cons