Gujarat High Court
Mangal Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd vs Executive Engineer(O And M) on 8 January, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1481/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1481 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10091 of 2010
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1481 of 2023
==========================================================
MANGAL RUBBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(O AND M)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 08/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the record.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the Electricity
Department seeking to challenge the order passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1481/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
Appellate Authority dated 27.01.2010 in Appeal No.02/1009-
1010 vide Order No.NAMVN/TPS/APPEAL/627 27-1-
2010/2010 has been allowed. While quashing the order
passed by the Appellate Authority, it is recorded by the
learned Single Judge that undisputed facts arising for
adjudication in the writ petition are that the respondent No.1
- appellant herein, is having electricity connection of 180 KV
for plot No.308 only. The said fact is evident from the details
in the application wherein power supply was required for plot
No.308, GIDC, Gundlav, Valsad. The electricity authority, on
an inspection of the premises found that the respondent No.1
had extended the usage of electricity beyond what was
applied for and supplied to him. Supplementary bill dated
01.05.2009 to the tune of Rs.6,14,215.78 had, thus, been
issued to the respondent. Further recording the provisions of
the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations
and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1368 of 2018 dated 16.07.2021, it was
noticed by the learned Single Judge that as per the provisions
of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity Supply Code
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1481/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
made thereunder, the applicant is required to apply for
supply of electricity in Form A-1 under Section 50 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. The respondent No.1 / appellant
herein, had applied for H.T. supply for electricity for plot
No.308, on the Form appended at page No. '39' as
Annexure-'E' to the writ petition to the writ petition and the
relevant column No.5 only mention was of plot No.308, GIDC,
Gundlav, Valsad.
3. The learned Single Judge has, thus, reached at the
opinion that with regard to the plot Nos. 309 and 310, the
extension of electricity connection granted by the department
for plot No.308, would fall within the ambit of unauthorised
use of electricity. It was, thus, concluded that when the
application seeking electricity connection-in-question, was for
plot No.308 and the same was considered by the Electricity
Department, the usage of plot Nos. 309 and 310 never
forming part of the said application, the act of the
department in raising supplementary bill for the said plot
cannot be said to be bad in law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1481/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
4. Assailing these findings returned by the learned
Single Judge, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel
for the appellant that three plots namely plot Nos.308, 309
and 310 were finally allotted by GIDC to the appellant on
20.02.1988 and, thereafter, by getting the plan sanctioned
from GIDC, the construction of factory / manufacturing unit
along with other units was completed. The entire plan
sanctioned by GIDC was pertaining to three contiguous plots
namely plot Nos.308, 309 and 310 and the said plan was duly
placed before the electricity authority at the time of grant of
connection on 21.01.1989. The submission is that though the
electricity connection was applied in the prescribed form for
plot No.308 only, and was granted for that plot but in
principle, it was understood and agreed by the electricity
authority that the appellant would require electricity
connection for entire premises comprising of three plots
namely plot Nos. 308, 309 and 310.
5. The submission, thus, is that no fault can be attached
to the act of the petitioner in utilizing electricity connection
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1481/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
for the entire premises including the plot Nos. 309 and 310.
6. Further contention is that the reliance placed on the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 1368 of 2018 is misplaced, inasmuch as, the fact
situation of the said case was completely different from the
present one. In the said case, the plots were allotted at
different point of time and the electricity connection granted
at an earlier point of time was extended to the subsequently
acquired / allotted plots. It is vehemently argued that the
present case cannot be said to be a case of unauthorized use
of electricity, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not supplied
electricity to any other person nor has extended it beyond the
premises wherein the factory / manufacturing unit was
established.
7. We find inherent fallacy in the arguments of the
learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as, there is no
dispute about the fact that the appellant, for the reasons best
known to it, had applied for electricity connection only for
one plot i.e. plot No.308 in the prescribed format, which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1481/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
placed on record of the writ petition. As was mentioned in
the application, the electricity connection was granted by the
department only with respect to plot No.308. The facts that
the plan for entire premises was sanctioned by the GIDC or
the same was before the Electricity Department or the
construction plan comprised two other plots namely plot
Nos.309 and 310 or that these three plots namely the plot
Nos.308, 309 and 310 are contiguous plots, are of no
relevance insofar as the electricity connection is concerned.
8. On a pointed query made by us, no explanation is
forthcoming as to why the appellant would not include two
other plots namely plot Nos.309 and 310 in the prescribed
format for seeking electricity connection when these three
plots were allotted and to be utilized for construction of the
entire manufacturing unit.
9. There was no occasion for the appellant not to
include the two plots Nos. 309 and 310 in the prescribed
format while applying for electricity connection. The
subsequent extension of electricity connection to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1481/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
premises constructed over plot Nos. 309 and 310 by the
petitioner is nothing but an act of unauthorized use of
electricity.
10. No infirmity, therefore, could be find in the findings
returned by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is
dismissed being devoid of merit. Civil Application for stay as
well as any other pending application/s shall also stands
disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
AMAR SINGH
