JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Premal R. Joshi, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. With consent of learned counsels appearing for both the sides, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.

2. In view of the fact that identical and similar issue is involved in both the petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Both these petitions are preferred by the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Electricity Act challenging the impugned connection from the respondent authority pertaining to rejection of the electric connection.

4. Since an identical issue is involved, Special Civil Application No.15311 of 2024 is treated as lead petition and in the said petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief/s:-

“9(A) The Hon'ble Court may please to admit and allow this petition by issuing the writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned communication from the respondent authority which at annexure-A pertaining to rejection of the electric connection in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

(B) The Hon'ble Court may please to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein to provide electric connection at the property situated at B-103, Unnati Palace, Pipaliyanagar, Keshod, Junagadh;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and till the final disposal of this present petition, this Hon'ble Court may please to direct the respondent no. 2 to grant electric connection at the property situated at B-103, Unnati Palace, Pipaliyanagar, Keshod, Junagadh in the interest of justice;

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further orders, as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;"

5. The facts mentioned in the lead petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.15311 of 2024 are that the petitioner is residing with her family and is engaged in the construction business along with her sons. In the year 2015, the petitioner undertook a project named “Unnati Palace” on jointly owned land, comprising 24 flats. Due to financial constraints, the petitioner borrowed money from private individuals and, as security, handed over documents of certain flats while also paying interest at the rate of 7% per month. Despite having repaid amounts exceeding the principal, the petitioner and her family members were subjected to continuous harassment and unlawful demands. Under such pressure, the petitioner was compelled to execute sale deeds of several flats at undervalued rates in favour of the said persons.

5.1 Thereafter, the said persons allegedly threatened the petitioner’s family, trespassed into their residence, caused damage to property, and attempted to extort money. Although complaints were lodged before the police authorities, no effective action has been taken. In the meantime, the petitioner applied for an electricity connection for her flat; however, the same was denied on the basis of objections raised by the said persons. Despite the building being completed in 2016 and completion of all necessary formalities, including payment of charges and installation work, the electricity connection has not been granted.

5.2 The petitioner, being the lawful owner and taxpayer of Flat No. 301, made repeated applications and representations seeking reasons for such denial; however, no satisfactory response has been provided, nor have the authorities justified their action. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present petition.

6. Heard Vilaskumar R. Thomar for learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the persons objecting to the grant of electricity connection have no locus standi and are merely acting to harass the Petitioner, against whom m