1. Petitioner sought electricity connection for agricultural land; approved but denied due to co-sharer objection despite established ownership and possession. (Para 3 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
MANOJBHAI KANJIBHAI RUPARELIYAV/sPASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED
R/SCA/15830/2022
1. Petitioner sought electricity connection for agricultural land; approved but denied due to co-sharer objection despite established ownership and possession. (Para 3 )
2. Petitioner: statutory duty to supply once possession established; Respondents: requirement of NOC from co-sharers justified due to joint ownership. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Impugned refusal quashed; respondent directed to supply new electricity connection within eight weeks. (Para 15 )
The distribution licensee must supply electricity to any owner or occupier of premises upon application; it cannot deny connection based on title disputes. (Para 9 , 10 )
No, the authority cannot decide questions of right or title among co-owners nor insist on consent of co-sharers once possession is established. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
No, electricity is a basic amenity and cannot be denied on that ground; the authority need only verify the applicant's occupation of the premises. (Para 13 , 14 )
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Pratik Jasni, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. With consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today.
2. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner under
Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, under Rules 3 and 4 of the Electricity (Rights of Consumer) Rules, 2020 r/w the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2015 with below mentioned relief/s:-
"8(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.3 to provide/restore new electricity connection in favour of the petitioner at the property of the petitioner;
(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to provide/restore new electricity connection in favour of the petitioner at the property of the petitioner;
(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted;"
3. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner is the owner and cultivator of agricultural lands bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 82 Paiki 1, 80, 81, 87 Paiki 2 and 88, admeasuring in aggregate Hectare 03-26-78 Are-Sq. Mtrs. The petitioner is in possession of the said lands and is earning his livelihood through agricultural activities carried out thereon.
3.1 The said lands were originally owned and cultivated by the petitioner’s father, late Kanjibhai Vallabhjibhai Rupareliya. After his demise on 29.11.1995, the petitioner
has been cultivating and taking care of the said lands and continues to remain in possession thereof. The petitioner has also been recognized as a protected tenant by the Gram Panchayat.
3.2 As per say of the petitioner certain private respondents had earlier attempted to interfere with and grab the petitioner’s land, which led to a police complaint; however, the dispute was subsequently settled. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to enjoy peaceful possession of the lands, as reflected in the revenue records.
3.3 The petitioner applied for a new electricity connection for the agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 80. The application was approved and the requisite charges were paid. Upon request of the petitioner, the electricity company also agreed to upgrade the transformer capacity. However, when the officials attempted to carry out the work, obstruction was caused by respondent No.5, preventing installation.
3.4 Despite complaints and representations made by the petitioner and even by the electricity company to the police authorities, no effective action was taken. Subsequently, the electricity company raised objections on the ground that the well situated on the land was in joint name and required consent of another person, and on that basis refused to proceed with the installation of the electricity connection.
3.5 The petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities seeking implementation of the sanctioned electricity connection, and also sought information under the Right to Information Act. Meanwhile, objections were also raised by private respondents before the electricity authorities, leading to internal correspondence and inquiry by the officials.
3.6 Ultimately, despite approval of the application and compliance by the petitioner, the electricity connection has not been released, giving rise to the present grievance. Being aggrieved by the inaction and arbitrary conduct of the respondent authorities in not providing the electricity connection,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top