Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14465/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14465 of
2010
=========================================================
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RASIKBHAI
LABHUBHAI BALAR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
LILU K BHAYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 15/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This petition is
filed by the Pashchim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, challenging an
order dated 22.07.2010, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman of State
of Gujarat. By the impugned order, the petitioner Electricity
Company is directed to grant reconnection of electricity in favour of
the respondent.
2. From the record it
emerges that on agricultural land, bearing Survey No. 15/2 of village
Bhoringda, electric connection of 5 horse powers was granted in the
name of one Dahyabhai Bhimjibhai Balar on 26.10.1990, upon his
application dated 27.07.1984. For non-payment of electricity charges,
there was permanent dis-connection of electricity on 14.08.1998. The
present respondent applied for reconnection and also paid a sum of
Rs.21,155/-, under the receipt dated 22.06.2008, as per the order of
the Lok Adalat. However, the Electricity Company did not grant
reconnection on the ground that such reconnection can be prayed only
by the owner of the land or his heirs and the respondent not being a
owner nor a heir, was not entitled to seek reconnection.
3. In
the impugned order, however, the authority noticed that the land in
question was sold by the erst-while owner Dahyabhai Bhimjibhai Balar
to the present respondent on 01.02.1989. The amount of Rs.21,155/-
was paid by the present respondent, as per the order of the Lok
Adalat. He had also applied for reconnection and change of name of
the consumer on 03.09.2007 and also paid the necessary charges for
the same. The authority further recorded that erst-while owner
Dahyabhai Bhimjibhai Balar on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- has also
given in writing ‘No Objection’ on 05.01.2009 for reconnection being
granted to the respondent. The authority was of the opinion that the
respondent had become owner of the land on 01.02.1989. The fact that
he did not get the electricity connection transferred in his name, is
at the best, a case of negligence on his part. The Electricity
Company had also accepted amounts from the respondent, application
for reconnection was also made by him, which was received by the
Electricity
Company. The authority, therefore, directed reconnection in favour of
the present respondent.
4. Having
heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Electricity Company,
and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that
in ordinary circumstances the policy of Electricity Company is that
the reconnection can be granted only upon an application by the owner
or his legal heirs, would be the sound policy. In the present case,
however, the respondent had purchased the agricultural land on
01.02.1989 i.e. even before the electricity connection was granted on
26.10.1990. This connection was, of course, granted on the request of
the erst-while owner Dahyabhai Bhimjibhai Balar, vide application
dated 27.07.1984. However, for all practical purpose the respondent
had enjoyed the electricity connection. He would have paid the
consumption charges also from October, 1990 till June, 2008, when the
connection was permanently disconnected for non-payment of legal
dues. Mere fact that he did not take timely steps to get the
electricity connection transferred in his name, should not be allowed
to come in his way seeking reconnection, when he had become the owner
of the land in question, even before the electricity connection was
granted. It is not the case of the petitioner Electricity Company
that if respondent had applied for such transfer of the name, such
application would not have been considered. Even the erst-while
owner supported the case of the respondent, by giving ‘No Objection’
to the Electricity Company. Considering these aspects of the matter,
I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It has come on
record that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.21,155/- as
ascertained. It, therefore, cannot be stated that order for
reconnection was made upon payment of a sum of Rs.300/- for transfer
of the name. In any case, there is nothing in the order of the
Ombudsman to grant such reconnection without payment of the legal
dues.
5. With these
clarifications, this petition is disposed of.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top