Gujarat High Court
Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited vs M/S Rahulra J Mall Co Op. Service Society ... on 22 May, 2020
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19890 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1897 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
M/S RAHULRA J MALL CO OP. SERVICE SOCIETY LTD(RAHUL RAJ
ESTATE PVT. LTD)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR KK TRIVEDI(934) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,7
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 22/05/2020
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 33
Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020
C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT
1. By these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited has challenged a common order dated 27th September, 2018 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in Case Nos. 34 and 35 of 2018.
2. Brief facts of the petitions are as under :
2.1) It appears that the petitioners had sanctioned in all two HT electric connections 11641 and 11643 in the name of M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Private Limited for 1000 KVA and 1900 KVA respectively. The other two connections being HT electric connections no. 11605 and 11636 were sanctioned in the name of M/s. Vrundavan Developers for 850 KVA and 750 KVA respectively. All these four connections were granted on land bearing survey no. 20, TP Scheme no. 28, FP No.31 of village Rundh, Dumas road, Surat for common utility between the period from 2009 to 2011.
2.2) It appears that the petitioner on coming into force of Electricity Supply Code in the year 2015, called upon the aforesaid both the entities by issuing notice dated 19.9.2017 to amalgamate both the connections since the same were in the name of same legal entity having same ownership and same PAN card number and as per the clause no. 4.1.17 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 Page 2 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT ("Code2005" for short) and clause no. 4.28 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2015 ("Code2015" for short) read with circular no. 769, only one connection can be granted in one premises.
2.3) It appears that both M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Private Limited and M/s. Vrundavan Developers opposed the said notice contending that end users of both the connections are different though the same are in the same premises and in same name adjacent to each other and hence there is no breach of clause 4.28 of the Code 2015. It appears that petitioner thereafter issued second notice dated 6.10.2017 and called upon to amalgamate both the connections and also issued bill dated 18.10.2017 for October 2017 by merging both the connections.
2.4) The petitioner thereafter issued supplementary bill dated 1st February, 2018 for Rs. 1,00,82,762.62 ps to M/s Vrundavan Developers from the date of connection up to 30th September, 2017 and similar bill was issued for Rs.1,60,42,912.18 ps to M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Private Limited.
2.5) Thereafter, respondents no. 1 to 4 filed consumer complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ("CGRF" for short) of the petitioner being Case Nos. 205 and 205 of 20172018.
2.6) Respondent no.1 M/s. Rahul Raj Cooperative Page 3 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Services Society limited preferred Special Civil Application No. 3475/2018 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 5th March, 2018 directed CGRF to decide the matter within two weeks. The CGRF thereafter passed the order dated 28th March, 2018 by disposing of both the complaints relying upon clause no. 4.28 of the Code.
2.7) Respondents no. 1 to 4 being aggrieved by the order passed by CGRF preferred appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State - respondent no.7 by filing Case No.34 and 35 of 2018. The Electricity Ombudsman allowed the appeals filed by respondents no. 1 to 4 vide impugned order dated 27th September, 2018 and directed the petitioner to issue revised bill for merger of connections from the date of merger notice issued to the submission of documents for change of name by both the entities.
According to the petitioner, the electricity dues would be reduced to Rs. 1,65,369.48 ps as against the original supplementary bill for Rs. 1,00,82,762.62 ps. in case of M/s Vrundavan Developers and in case of M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Private Limited, it would be reduced to Rs.3,02,059.13 ps. as against the original supplementary bill for Rs.1,60,42,912.18 ps.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that both the connections were in the same premises adjacent to each other and ownership is of one legal entity having common PAN number and therefore, as per the provisions of the Page 4 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Electricity Supply Code, more than one connection cannot be granted and the consumer was required to merge the connections and in such circumstances, the Electricity Ombudsman ought to have appreciated that M/s. Vrundavan Developers and M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Private Limited failed to submit any document nor applied for transfer of name of the connections after implementation of the Code.
3.1) It was submitted by Ms. Bhaya that though it was pointed out before the CGRF that the premises having connection no. HT 11636 was sold to M/s. Alidhara Texspin which is running a Multiplex having separate PAN card but no sale deed nor any document was produced before the petitioner.
3.2) It was f submitted by Ms. Bhaya that though the case was put up before the authorities that end users of electricity are different but such users have not got transferred the electric connections in their names and therefore, such connections are required to be merged as per clause no.4.1.17 of the Code2005 and clause no. 4.28 of the Code2015. The petitioner was therefore, justified in issuing the revised bill as the application for transfer made by respective parties were not complete and the same were without documents and the connection remained in the name of M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Private Limited and M/s. Vrundavan Developers till the notices were issued by the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner Page 5 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT was justified to issue the supplementary bill till 30th September, 2017 for merger of two HT connections.
3.3) Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was required to issue notice for merger of two HT connections in view of order of APTEL in Appeal No.131/2013 dated 7th August, 2014. It was also submitted that the Electricity Ombudsman has failed to consider and appreciate the provisions of section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("Act2003" for short) and relevant provisions of the Code and thereby committed an error by directing the petitioner to issue the revised bill from the date of notice.
3.4) Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Lakhani Filaments Pvt. Ltd v. Daxin Gujarat Vij Co. ltd and another rendered on 8th April, 2015 in Special Civil Application No. 15105/2012 wherein order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman was confirmed by dismissing the petition. Reliance was placed on the following observations of the said judgment :
"17. Besides this, when the HT Connections granted by the respondent Company are still in operation, then the existing three connections would stand covered by Electricity Supply Code and merely because it was granted and released earlier, it will not take the said connections out of the reach of the Act and the purview of the Electricity Supply Code, which came into force on the Notification No.11/05.
18. It is not the case of the petitioner that it had submitted cogent and sufficient documents to establish that three entities are separate legal entities and the respondent Ombudsmen ignored the said documents.Page 6 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT
18.1 It is undisputed fact that any document which would establish that three entities are separate entities were not submitted by the petitioner before the forum and/or the Ombudsman and any document are not placed on record of present petition as well.
19. The petitioner being conscious of the fact that, it is not in a position to establish that three entities are separate legal entities, the learned advocate restricted the submission to the aforesaid solitary contention i.e. Notification and the Code does not have any retrospective effect, and the said finding of fact and conclusion by the said two authorities (viz. the petitioner failed to establish that said three undertaking are seperate legal entities, is not assailed by the petitioner.
20. In this view of of the matter, it becomes clear that the order passed by the respondent ombudsmen does not suffer from any infirmity and the contention on which action is challenged is, for the foregoing reasons and in light of the provisions under Rules / Code, not sustainable.
21. At this stage, it is relevant to recall and mention that in present petition, the petitioner has merely challenged the order dated 26.07.2012 and order dated 23.02.2012.
21.1 It is pertinent that the petitioner did not challenge the supplementary bill before the Ombudsmen or before the forum and even in present petition, supplementary bill is not challenged by the petitioner.
21.2 In that view of the matter, the issue as to whether the respondent Electricity Company is justified in raising the bill and claiming payment for past period i.e. for the period prior to the notice (whereby the respondents took the action of clubbing / merging three connections) is justified or not is not required to be examined in present matter.
22. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner has failed to establish any ground to assail the impugned order passed by the respondent Ombudsmen.
22.1 The said order does not suffer from any infirmity and that therefore, the petition against the said order does not deserve to be entertained."Page 7 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. K.K. Trivedi appearing for respondents no. 1 to 4 relying upon the averments made in the affidavit in reply submitted that M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Private Limited as well as M/s. Vrundavan Developers submitted that the developer had developed the land in question and got the electricity connection from the petitioner during the course of development for construction of three storied structure which is popularly known as "Rahulraj Mall" which is a shopping centre and more than 319 persons are having the ownership of the shops situated in the premises. It was further submitted that there are 319 shops and 8 screens PVR cinema in the said property and the shops are transferred to the respective owners through registered sale deed in the year 20102012. Reference was made to various sale deeds produced on record from AnnexureRA to Annexure RE.
4.1) Learned advocate for the respondents no.1 to 4 further submitted that the electric consumption bills of the petitioner were paid by different shops owners by making contribution. It was submitted that electricity connection no. 11605 having 850 KVA load was utilized by members of respondent no.1 for common facilities. Electricity connection no. 11641 having 1000 KVA load was used by respondent no.4. Electricity connection no. 11636 having 750 KVA load was used by respondent no.2 and electricity connection no. 11643 having 1900 KVA load was used by members of respondent no.1 for shops. It was therefore, Page 8 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT submitted that each of the connections were utilized by different persons in the said premises. In view of the above facts, it was submitted that as the original builders did not pay the electricity bill though the amount was recovered from the shop owners, the electricity supply was disconnected in January, 2017 by the petitioner and the shop owners had to pay the amount of electricity bills to the petitioner and thereafter, the shop owners were required to take over the management with effect from 28th April, 2017 from the builders and form the service society as respondent no.1. In such circumstances, it was submitted that the application could not be made to the petitioner for amalgamation of the electricity connection. It was submitted the members of respondent no.1 are small shop owners and they do not require electricity connections with sanctioned electricity load of 1900 KVA or 1000 KVA and therefore, a request was made to the petitioner to reduce the sanctioned electricity load. However, it was informed by the petitioner that the same cannot be reduced without "NO Objection Certificate" from the builder. Learned advocate for the respondent relied upon the points of settlement dated 28th April, 2018 that had taken place between the builder and respondents no. 2 and 3 while taking over the management of the premises by respondent no.1 to contend that it was agreed to regularize the electric connections of the shop owners and respondents no. 2, 3 and 4.
4.2) Learned advocate for the respondents no. 1 to 4 Page 9 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT submitted that the petitioner was not justified in issuing the supplementary bills from the month of April 2011 till September 2017 and in such circumstances, the Electricity Ombudsman was justified in directing the petitioner to issue the supplementary bill from the date of issuance of merger notice. It was submitted that the petitioner was in knowledge of the fact that the shops are sold out to different shop owners, in spite of this, separate connections were not provided to each of the shop owners while facilitating the builders of the Mall.
4.3) Learned advocate for the respondents no. 1 to 4 thereafter, relied upon the following averments in the affidavit in reply :
"3.48 The "premises" has been defined under the provisions of Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which states that "premises" include any land, building or structure. The "consumer" is also defined under the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Once the property is transferred by the erstwhile owner to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/members of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the transferees became consumer. Merely because the name on the electricity bill is not changed, the DGVCL cannot merge the Bill, though the consumers are different with different premises. In the Electricity Supply Code 2015 also, more particularly, Section 2(54) thereof states that "premises"
refers to land, building or infrastructure or part or combination thereof in respect of which a separate meter or metering arrangement have been made by the licensee for supply of electricity. The DGVCL has failed to appreciate that the part or combination of part of building is also "premises" as per the Electricity Supply Code 2015 [Clause 2(15)]. The merger of the electricity bills itself is illegal and against the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code 2015. The DGVCL has not considered the fact that the electricity Page 10 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT connection through the electricity meter no.11641 is exclusively utilized by the Resp. nos.3 and 4, but the same has been merged with the electricity connection through the electricity meter no.11643, which is as stated hereinabove utilized by the members of the Resp. no.1. The premises occupied by the Resp. no. 1 and the Resp. nos.3 and 4 are different. Therefore, the electricity connection through the electricity meter No.11643 could not have been merged with the electricity connection through the electricity meter No.11641.
3.49 Though one application was preferred by the Resp. Nos. 1 to 4, the CGRF passed the two separate orders both dated 02.04.2018 in Case No. 205/ 201718 and Case No. 204/ 201718 rejecting the application.
3.50 In the similar and identical matter i.e. in case of M/s. J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited V/s. Executive Engineer, Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. In case No.68 of 201718, by order dated 11.08.2017, copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE E, the Hon'ble Consumers' Grievances Redressal Forum [hereinafter shall be referred to as "the CGRF" for short] has taken view to the effect that the Supplemental Bill is required to be issued With effect from 24.09.2015. The Coram of the CGRF was / is also the same in the said matter. The CGRF cannot take different stand / view in the case of the Respondents.
3.51 This Hon'ble Ombudsman has also taken similar view in the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017, copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE "KK", in Case No.88 of 2017 (M/s. Shri Umiya Stone Quarry V/s. Executive Engineer, DGVCL), and decided the issue that the arrears of difference of tariff can be recovered from the date of detection of the error. In the present case also, as the notice of merger was issued, for the first time, in the month of September, 2017, the amount of of Supplemental Bill/s can be levied only from the month of September, 2017.
3.52 All the shop holders have different PAN Card Page 11 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Numbers. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE "LL" COL'LY are copies of PAN Cards of all the shop holders. Similarly, all the shop holders have different GST Numbers (Goods and Service Tax Numbers). Also annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE MM is a list of shop holders with their respective GST IN / UIN Numbers. Copies of Municipal Tax Bills of each of the shop holders are also annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE "NN" COL'LY. The DGVCL sends electricity bills to the Resp. No.1 Society, Resp. No.2 , 3 & 4 and paid the members of the Resp. No.1 by contribution, and other Resp. No. 2 to 4 individually. The Builders Respondent No. 2 & 3 has no title or interest in the shops since the year 20112012.
3.53 The above referred facts clearly indicates that all the shops are different premises with different shop holders with different PAN Card Numbers and different GST Numbers since the year 201112. Even the Indexes of all the registered Sale Deeds indicate that all the shops are / were transferred by the Builder in the year 2011 in favor of different shop owners on different date and at different sale consideration. Though the building's nomenclature is "MALL", in fact, it is a Shopping Complex, as all the shops are under ownership of different shop owners. List of which is given along with the Application {Annexure "GG"}. Further the PAN Cards of each of the shop owners are also different. The Developer of the Mall has, in fact, nothing to do with the shops and / or business of the shop owners. Just because the building is known as "Mall", it cannot be and should not be termed as a single unit / single premises. In some of the Malls, all the shops are owned by the respective owners of the Mall and the same is / can be said to be a single unit / single premises, however, the shops in the Rahulraj Mall are not owned by single owner, but the shops are owned by different shop owners. The shop owners are of different caste, creed, region and language and they are not related either by blood or by marriage with each other. So all the shop owners are required to be provided with separate electricity meters. The DGVCL should not be attracted by the word "Mall". The endusers of the shops are different shop owners and endusers of the electricity power / electricity connection are also different shop owners, who are paying electricity Page 12 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT bill. The developer does not have any control over the shop owners. So the PAN Cards of the builder cannot be shown to establish that the electricity supply is provided to a single unit / single premises.
3.54 The Clause 4.28 of the Supply Code, 2015 is directory and not mandatory. The said Clause 4.28 of the Supply Code, 2015 does not provide for any consequences for the nonobservance of the same. As no consequential penalty is prescribed for providing separate electricity connection for separate enduser, the supplementary charge/ supplementary bill cannot be raised by the DGVCL from the month of April, 2011. Whether the provision is director or mandatory is always depend upon the consequential penalty provided under the Act / Code. The Respondent craves leave to refer to and rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Chhotubhai Chikabhai Patel V/s. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2000) 2 GLR359. Para Nos. 38 of the said judgment reproduced as under).
"38. In view of the above we find that requirement of subsection (3A) of Section 17 has not been fulfilled. However, the question arises to what effect. Undoubtedly the statute enjoins a duty on the Land Acquisition Officer to make 80% of the estimated amount of compensation before taking possession in case powers under Section 17(1) have been invoked to take possession before making of the award, which shall ordinarily be the case in the absence of notification of power under Section 17. The provision has been couched as a mandate to the Land Acquisition Officer. However, no consequence has been provided under the Act for the failure of the Land Acquisition Officer to discharge this obligation. Though prima facie inference from the language used in the statute appears to be mandatory in character in its compliance but whether it implies nullification of the Act for disobedience is a question to be considered. The principle is settled and can be spelt out in the words of Lord Campbell from the oft quoted passage from his opinion in Liverpool Bank v. Turner (1861) 30 LJ Ch 379:
"No universal rule can be laid down as to whether Page 13 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of Courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be considered."
3.55 M /S Shivpuja Estates Made application on 8/10/2012 to The DGVCL requesting to change of name from M/S Rahul Raj Estate Private Limited to M/S Shiv Puja Estate for existing connection number 11641 (1000 KVA). The DGVCL wrote a letter dated 28/7/2014, copy of which is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R00 for providing documents. The Shivpuja Estate has submitted all the relevant document and also NOC dated 19/7/2014, Copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure RPP issued by the Rahul Raj Estates Private Limited. However the name has not been transferred by the DGVCL. The Respondents have paid Rs. 53, 50,000. 00 towards Supplementary Bill for Meter Connection Number 11643 And Rs 33,70,000.00 for Meter Connection Number 11605 on 30/4/2018. The Copies of the cheques and receipts acknowledged By DGVCL against payment are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE 'RPP' Collectively .
In over and above, following amount by way of security deposit lying with the DGVCL against the four of the meter connections as under:
Sr. No. Meter No. Security
Deposit
1 11643 7087294.00
2 11641 3533857.00
3 11605 2696731.00
4 11636 2379700.00
Total 15495582.00
5 Suup. Bill 33% Deposit 53,50,000.00
11643
6 Supp. Bill 33% Deposit 33,70,000.00
11605
Page 14 of 33
Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020
C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT
Grand Total 24215582.00
It is pertinent to note that the security deposit from sr. no. 1 to 4 of the table above was paid by the builder is part of the electricity expenses collected by the builders from the purchasers of the shops/theaters. The builders can not claim refund of the same in his favor. The DGVCL is indirectly helping the builders in guise of fresh application for the load reduction and N0C for change of name. The respondents no. 1 to 4 have deposited the amount with the DGVCL from sr. no. 5 to 6 in the table above."
4.4) Learned advocate for the respondents no. 1 to 4 relying upon the aforesaid submissions prayed that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman which is based on the provisions of the Act2003 and the Code.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, Electricity Ombudsman appears to have taken into consideration voluminous documents produced on record by respondents no. 1 to 4 and after considering the same has arrived at the following findings :
"4.7 To deal with the issue of merger of two HT connections and issue of supplementary bills to Respondent No.2 and 3, it is necessary to read the Section 2( 15) and 2(49) of the Electricity Act,2003, along with Clause 4.28 of Supply Code, 2015 and Clause No.4.l.l7 of Supply Code,2005.
2(15) : "consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of Page 15 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;
2(49): "person" shall include any company or body corporate or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or artificial juridical person; The electricity connections were released earlier in the year 2011 to 2013 and at relevant time Supply Code 2005, Notification No.11 of 2005 was in existence. Therefore, relevant portion of Clause 4.1.17 is required to be read which is as under:
Clause 4.1.17:
The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than one connection/meter for one premises. The consumers opting for second meter will have to produce separate legal entity such as documents of separate Income Tax No/ Sales Tax No. ration card and rent or lease agreement. With effect from 24.09.2015, Supply Code,2015 is effective and Clause 4.28 speaks as under:
Clause 4.28:
The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than one connection for one premise or in adjoining/contiguous premises belonging to same owner if these are not separated by a public road or by private promise. The consumers opting for second connection will have to produce separate legal entity documents such as separate Income Tax No/ Sales Tax No., ration card and rent or lease agreement.
Respondent No.1 had issued supplementary bills for merger of two HT connections on the basis of above provisions.Page 16 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT
4.8 It is on record that while applying for new HT connection (HTl1605), M/s. Vrundavan Developers Respondent No.2 has demanded HT power supply for Mall for 850 KVA contracted demand at Revenue Survey No. 20, FP No.31, TPS No.28 at village Rundh. Release order was also issued by Respondent No.1 on 09.07.2009 under HTPIIA tariff category. While application for new HT connection (HT11636) asked by M/s. Vrundavan Developers at 3rd floor Multiplex area at Revenue Survey No.20, FP No.31, TP No.28 at village Rundh. Release order was issued under HTPl tariff on 17.03.2011.
From the above, it is established that initially Respondent No.1 might have processed for two HT connections in the name of Respondent No.2 for different purpose with different tariff categories observing the provisions 4.1.17 of Supply Code,2005.
Similarly, it is on record that while applying for new HT connections (HT11641) M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Pvt. Limited, Respondent No.3 has demanded HT power supply for Mall for 1000 KVA contracted demand at Revenue Survey No. 20, FP No. 31, TPS No.28 at village Rundh for Life Style International Limited. Release order was also issued by Respondent No.1 on 11.08.2011 under HTPI tariff category. While application for new HT connection (HT11643) asked by M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Pvt. Limited, at shopping area at Revenue Survey No.20, FP No.31, TP No.28 at village Rundh. Release order was issued under HTPI tariff on 06.09.2011.
From the above, it is established that initially Respondent No.1 might have processed for two HT connections in the name of Respondent No.3 for different purposes with different tariff categories observing the provisions 4.1.17 of Supply Code,2005.
4.9 As per the record submitted by both the parties, regarding payment of energy bills of M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Pvt. Limited, HT connection No.11641, regular energy bill payment was made by M/s. Life Style International Ltd., since December,2011.
Page 17 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENTSimilarly, as per the record submitted by both the parties, regarding payment of energy bills of M/s. Vrundavan Developers (Fame Multiplex) HT connection No.11636, regular energy bill payment was made by M/s. PVR Limited since December,2011.
Appellant No.1 is paying energy bills of HT connection No.11605, common lighting connection and HT connection No. 11643 since formation of Coop. Society for the maintenance of common amenities of M /s. Rahul Raj Mall. As per the say of Appellants, previously energy bills for common lighting purpose connection were paid by the Builder by collecting the amount from the shop owners.
4.10 On the basis of submission of documents related to ownership of premises, Respondent No.1 had released two HT connections for different purpose. The premises i.e. (Rahul Raj Mall) is a whole structure developed by builder. It is a case where commercial space/ shops were developed and sold out/ lease to person who has not entered his/her name in to the electric connections, in case of HT connection No.11641 and HT connection No. 11636.
On receipt of notice dated 19.09.2017 and 06.10.2017, Appellant No.2 and 4 had submitted details regarding ownership of premises of HT connection No.11641 and No.11636 mentioning that they were using electric supply and paying electric bills at their level regularly since long.
4.11 As per record, Appellant No.4 is an owner of premises where HT connection No.11641 is situated and Appellant No.2 is an owner of premises where HT connection No.11636 is situated, while Appellant No.1 is Cooperative Service Society, framed by the Shops Owners of Rahul Raj Mall for maintenance of common amenities. Therefore, end user of electricity is different. Appellant No.4 is paying energy bill for HT connection No.11641 and Appellant No.2 is paying energy bill for HT connection No.11636, which is also confirmed by the Respondent No.1.
From the above it is seen that end users of the premises Page 18 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT were not entered their names in the respective electric service connections.
4.12 In the issue of supplementary bill, Respondent has quoted Circular No. 769 of erstwhile GEB. While going through the guideline issued in Circular No.769 it reveals that it is for release of only one power connection in one premises.
The Para No.1.10 it is reproduced as under:
"In case of Flat system and shopping complexes, where more than one flats or shops are located, separate service connection shall be given for flat and shop on ownership documents or rent deed/lease deed/ration card".
From the above guideline, separate connection should be directed to grant in case of production of ownership/rent deed/lease deed documents to concern.
Para No. 1.7 of the said circular is reproduced here under:
"Further physical verification of the premises needs to be done by Deputy Engineer in cases of LT connections and by Executive Engineer personally in case of HT consumers to ascertain the separate individual legal entity of the exclusive premises. It should be clearly ascertained that the premises are separate and such noting should be done by the respective engineers in the technical proposals which shall be maintained in the consumer's case file."
While releasing two H'I' connections, concern Executive Engineer might have visited the site of the appellant and prepared a technical proposal after verification of premises of two HT connections and utilization of purpose of electricity.
4.13 As per Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 it is mandatory provision to provide electric connection to applicant who produce legal ownership of premises.
Page 19 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT(Duty to supply on request): (l) 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 substations, 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 consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.
4.14 In this case, two HT connections were released by Respondent No.1 in the name of Respondent No.2 as per the details of Para No.4.l and in name of Respondent No.3 as per details of Para No.4.2. Respondent No.1 had also issued notice to merge two HT connections first time on 19.09.2017 after knowing the details regarding documents of existing connections and verification of site of Appellants.
It is also true that after getting two HT connections by Respondent No.3 at the said premises and after making rent deed/lease deed with another party, Appellant No.4 had processed for change of name for the HT connection No.11641 and later on, while receiving the notice from Respondent No.1, Appellant No.4 came forward and submitted the facts of end users of electricity at relevant premises.
It is also true that after getting two HT connections by Respondent No.2 at the said premises and after making rent deed/lease deed with another party, Appellant No.2 had not processed for change of name for the HT connection No.11636 and later on, while receiving the Page 20 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT notice from Respondent No. 1, Appellant No.2 came forward and submitted the facts of end users of electricity at relevant premises.
4.15. In reference to the observations made by CGRF in Para No. 14 and 15 of its order, CGRF has not decided the present grievance, but the issue involved herein is different one as narrated above.
The action taken by Respondent No.1 for merger/ clubbing of different connections of Respondent No.2 and 3 are in pursuance to existing provisions of 4.28 of Supply Code,2015. The individual owners of shops premises have to approach before Respondent No.1 for individual connection or for name change by producing requisite documents.
It is said by Appellants during hearing that individual connections were not granted by Respondent No.1 at earlier stage, but no relevant proof/documents pertaining to that were produced before Ombudsman.
4.16 Appellants have referred order dated 07.08.2014 of Hon'ble APTEL in Appeal No. 131 of 2014 in the matter of M/s. Vianney Enterprise V/s Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and others. In the said case, Hon'ble APTEL has observed in its order that arrears for difference in tariff could be recovered from the date of detection of the error.
Relevant portion of Para No.22 of the AP'I'EL order is as under:
"The State Commission has correctly held that the arrears have to be collected by the Electricity Board from the Appellant from the date of detection of error i.e.10.03.2008. We are in full agreement with the findings of the State Commission."
In the present case, after knowing two number of connections in the name of Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.3, Respondent No.1 has issued merger notice first time on 19.09.2017 for merger of HT Page 21 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT connections of Respondent No. 2 and 3.
4.17 This is a case in which end users of individual premises are different and separate. As per says of Appellants, energy bills are being paid by user of electricity of the said premises. Respondent No.1 had issued merger notice on the ground of documents available with them. Only having common PAN number of respondent no.2 for two HT connections and common PAN number of respondent no.3 for two HT connections, assumed that premises is one in the name of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 respectively and started issuing merger energy bills to Respondent No.2 and 3, which is objected by Appellants.
On the ground of definition of premises, Respondent No.1 had released the original connections in the name of Respondent No.2 and 3 at relevant point of time after verifying site and collecting ownership documents. At the time of receiving of application of HT connections at the premises of Respondent No.2 and 3, the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation Notification 11 of 2005 was in existence. Respondent No.1 should have followed the relevant provisions of Supply Code,2005 at relevant time for providing electric connections to Respondent No.2 and 3.
4.18 This is a case in which Respondent No.2 and 3 are builder developer and on their names two HT connections are recorded with Respondent No.1. As per say of Appellants, due to nonpayment of energy bills of HT connection No.11643, Respondent No.1 had disconnected the supply and thereafter all individual shop owners had collected the amount and paid the dues of energy bills and connection was reconnected by Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 and 3 have shown their inability to pay the energy bills of the shopping area as well as common lighting area connection and thereafter shop owners of M/s. Rahul Raj Mall had framed Rahul Raj Cooperative ServiceSociety for the maintenance of common amenities in Mall as well as for the payment of energy bills for HT connection No.11605, and HT connection No.11643 (Shopping Area of Complex). Appellant No.1 had requested Page 22 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT to direct Respondent No.1 for granting load reduction in HT connection No.11643 from 1900KVA to 1200KVA based on the recorded maximum demand of previous period, as Appellant No.1 is looking after maintenance activities of above mentioned two connections.
4.19 In absence of Respondent No.2 and 3, Appellant No.1 is handling the maintenance activities of M/s. Rahul Raj Mall and paying energy bills of HT connection No.11605 and HT connection No. 11643 (M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Pvt. Limited) and requested to grant load reduction of HT connection No. 11641 from 1000 KVA to 500 KVA and HT connection No.11643 from 1900 KVA to 1200 KVA and submitted application before Respondent No.1.
4.20. It is to note here that according to Respondent No.1, two HT connections are installed at one premises and therefore these HT connections are needed to be merged in case of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3.
The term "installation" defined under the CEA Notification 2010 for measures relating to safety and electric supply is as under:
'2(Zb): Installation means any composite electrical unit used for the purpose of generating, transforming, transmitting, converting, distributing or utilizing electricity."
The term "premises" has been separately defined in Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act,2003 as under:
"51: 'premises' includes any land, building or structure".
While as per Supply Code,2015, definition of 'premises' is as under:
"(54): 'Premises' refers to land, building or infrastructure or part or combination thereof in respect of which a separate meter or metering arrangements have been made by the licensee for supply of electricity. In case of Agriculture Connection, premises means the place of source of water in respect of which connection has been given or intended Page 23 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT to be given by the licensee for supply of electricity."
It is clear from the above definition that 'installation' and 'premises' carry the meaning assigned to them as per the CEA Regulations,2010 and the Electricity Act,2003. Any other meaning assigned to them which is not in line with these definitions will be of no consequence. It is clear the term 'installation' and 'premises' are quite independent. From the definition of the premises nothing prohibits the DISCOM to grant separate electricity connection to a person who produces legal documents showing separate legal entities.
4.21. So far crucial point as regards clubbing of meters of two connections installed at one premises is concerned, according to Appellants though two HT connections have been installed in one premises, activities for use of electricity are different and the establishments are also separate.
On perusal of records, it is seen that purpose of electricity for all these trade is one i.e. commercial. However, utilization of electricity at end users are for different purposes. It is also on records that shop owners by way of sale deed and Surat Municipal Corporation tax receipts have proven their legal ownership in the Mall where two HT connections were released by Respondent No.1 in the name of M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Pvt. Limited and two HT connections were released by Respondent No.1 in the name of M /s. Vrundavan Developers.
4.22. Existing consumers i.e. Respondent No.2 and 3 are not responding to Respondent No.1 and not attended before CGRF during the course of hearing. Respondent No.1 had already intimated Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 for merger of the respective HT connections and to pay the amount of supplementary bills issued to them. Respondent No.2 and 3 are developers who had demanded HT connections at initial point of time.
4.23. For HT connection No.11641, energy bills are being paid by M/s Lifestyle International Limited. Similarly, for HT connection No.11636 energy bills are paid by M /s. PVR Limited since Apri1,2016 to September,2017 as per Page 24 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT records submitted by parties.
4.24. For payment of energy bill as per the statement submitted by Respondent No 1, Appellant No.1 has requested for load reduction from 1900 KVA to 1200 KVA of HT connection No.11643 (shop area) and from 1000 KVA to 500 KVA of HT connection No.11641 (M/s. Lifestyle International Limited). Both the HT connections are in the name of Respondent No.3 (M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Pvt. Limited).
Respondent No.1 is directed to process the application for change of name/load reduction after requisite documents are produced for HT connection No.11641 by the incoming party with recovery of dues amount, if any. 4:25. On part of issue of supplementary bill of Rs. 1,60,42,912. 18 for merger of connections with previous effect, it is relevant to refer the APTEL Appeal No.131/2013 and order dated 07.08.2014.
Both HT connections are in the name of Respondent No.3, HTl1641, M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Pvt. Limited and HT 11643 for M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Pvt. Limited for Shopping area, having HTPI tariff. Respondent No.1 had detected above issue first time on 19.09.2017, when notice for merger of two HT connections was issued. Looking to these circumstances, and relevant with findings of APTEL order, it is a case of classification of category of connections as per Supply Code, 2015 Clause No. 4.76. Therefore, Respondent No.1 is directed to revise the supplementary bill for merger of connections from the date of notice issued to the date of submission of documents for change of name for HT connection No.11641.
4.26 Appellant No.1 has requested to grant load reduction in HT connection No.11641 and No.11643 on the ground of recorded KW loading i.e. very less load recorded since release of HT connections. Looking to that, Respondent No.1 is directed to grant load reduction of said HT connection No.11643, on fulfilment of criteria as specified as per Supply Code,2015 along with recovery of all dues amount. Respondent No.1 is also directed to accord the Page 25 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT approval for change of name in the name of incoming party for HT connection No.11641. Appellants have made 1/3rd payment of supplementary bill against original supplementary bill amount for filing appeal before Ombudsman. The said amount may be adjusted against the revised supplementary bill as directed above and to process the change of name proposal in case of HT connection No.11641 with recovery of all dues amount, if any.
4.27 In the Mall, initially one HT connections. was released by Respondent No.1 for common lighting purpose. Activities cover under for common lighting, lift, water pump for Mall. Both the HT connections were demanded by M/s. Vrindavan Developers at initial stage, out of that one HT connection No.11605 is for common lighting having different activities, while HT connection No.11636 released for different activities and later on developer had transferred the said premises to Alidhara Texpin, and by the tenant deed M/s. PVR Limited is end user since the year 2011 and since then M/s. PVR Limited is paying energy bills of the said HT connection. Therefore, it is a case of making change of name in HT connection No.11636.
In this case, developers had developed the commercial complex, namely Rahul Raj Mall and demanded two HT connections in his name initially and thereafter individual shop area sold out to different persons by way of sale deed or by giving the area on lease by way of lease deed. Therefore, electricity is being utilized by end user of units/shops of Mali since the date of purchase/lease, but name of consumer on records of Respondent No.1 is Respondent No.2. Therefore, clubbing of load of two HT connections makes difficulties to Appellants for making payment of regular energy bills, Appellant No.1 is making payment of HT connection No.11605, while Appellant No.2 is making payment of HT connection No.11636, while both HT connections are in the name of Respondent No.2 i.e. Developers, who remained absent during course of hearing before CGRF as well as before Ombudsman.
Appellant No.2 and Respondent No.1 both are directed to take immediate action for making change of name in the name of legal owner/occupier as per the norms of Supply Page 26 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Code, 2015 4.28. On part of issue of supplementary bill of Rs.1,00,82,762.62 for merger of connections with previous effect, it is relevant to refer the APTEL Appeal No.131/2013 and order dated 07.08.2014 as mentioned in above Para No.4.16.
Both HT connections are in the name of Respondent No.2, HT11605, M/s. Vrundavan Developers for commercial lighting purpose and HT11636 for M/s. Vrundavan Developers for PVR Mall, having HTPI tariff. Initially tariff of HT connection No.11636 was different one which was changed and at present with tariff schedule published by GERC, common HTPI tariff is applicable to both the connections. Respondent No.1 had detected above issue first time on 19.09.2017, when notice for merger of two HT connections was issued. Looking to these circumstances, and relevant with findings of APTEL order it is a case of classification of category of connections as per Supply Code, 2015 Clause No. 4.76. Therefore, Respondent No.1 is directed to revise the supplementary bill for merger of connections from the date of merger notice issued to submission of documents for change of name for HT connection no. 11636.
4.29. Respondent No.1 is also directed to accord the approval for change of name in the name of incoming party for HT connection No.11636 (M/s. PVR Mall). Appellants have made 1/3rd payment of supplementary bill against original supplementary bill amount for filing appeal before Ombudsman. The said amount may be adjusted against the revised supplementary bill as directed above and to process the change of name proposal in case of HT connection No.11636 with recovery of all dues amount, if any.
4.30. This is a case in which shop owners are entitled to get individual electric supply if they submit legal documents along with prescribed Al form as per Supply Code,2015. Respondent No.1 is also bound to provide individual electricity supply by observing the formalities as Page 27 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT per provisions of Supply Code,2015.
Compliance/action taken report may be intimated to this office within 60 days."
6. In order to consider whether the directions issued by the Electricity Ombudsman requires any interference or not, it would be necessary to refer to various definitions of and relevant clauses of the Code 2015 as under
Provisions of Act,2003 "2(15) : "consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;
2(49): "person" shall include any company or body corporate or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or artificial juridical person;
"Clause 4.1.17 of the Code 2005:
The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than one connection/meter for one premises. The consumers opting for second meter will have to produce separate legal entity such as documents of separate Income Tax No/ Sales Tax No. ration card and rent or lease agreement."
"Clause 4.28 of the Code 2015:
The Distribution Licensee will not provide more than one connection for one premise or in adjoining/contiguous premises belonging to same owner if these are not separated by a public road or by private promise. The consumers opting for second connection will have to produce separate legal entity documents such as separate Page 28 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Income Tax No/ Sales Tax No., ration card and rent or lease agreement."
"Premises"is defined in Act,2003 as under:
2(51)"premises" includes any land, building or structure."
Whereas Code 2015 explains/defines the term "premises" as under
"2(54): 'Premises' refers to land, building or infrastructure or part or combination thereof in respect of which a separate meter or metering arrangements have been made by the licensee for supply of electricity. In case of Agriculture Connection, premises means the place of source of water in respect of which connection has been given or intended to be given by the licensee for supply of electricity."
"Circular 769:
"1.10 In case of Flat system and shopping complexes, where more than one flats or shops are located, separate service connection shall be given for flat and shop on ownership documents or rent deed/lease deed/ration card".
"1.7 Further physical verification of the premises needs to be done by Deputy Engineer in cases of LT connections and by Executive Engineer personally in case of HT consumers to ascertain the separate individual legal entity of the exclusive premises. It should be clearly ascertained that the premises are separate and such noting should be done by the respective engineers in the technical proposals which shall be maintained in the consumer's case file."
"Section 43 (1) of the Act,2003:
(Duty to supply on request): (l) licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give Page 29 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT 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 substations, 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 consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area."
7. On perusal of the above definitions and relevant provisions of the Act2003, it is clear that section 43(1) of the Electricity Act provides for duty of the petitioner to supply electricity on request by sanctioning electric connection. On conjoint reading of clause 4.1.17 of Code2005 and clause 4.28 of Code2015, it transpires that distribution licensee will not provide more than one connection for one premise or in adjoining/continuous premises belonging to the same owner, if these are not separated by a public road or by private premises. It further provides that consumers opting for second connection will have to produce separate legal entity documents such as separate PAN number etc. Therefore, it would be necessary to refer to the definition of the consumer as well as person in section 2(15) and 2(49) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
8. In the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that both the connections were released by the petitioner in the name of Page 30 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT M/s. Vrundavan Developers and M/s. Rahul Raj Estate Private Limited. It is also not in dispute that respondents no. 1 to 4 have carried out the process for change of name in respective connections on receipt of the notice dated 19.9.2017 from the petitioner. In such circumstances, the Electricity Ombudsman has rightly come to the conclusion that CGRF did not decide the grievance of the respondents no. 1 to 4 while disposing of the complaint and ignored the issue involved as there are different users of the same electric connections and individual owners of the shop premises were required to approach before the petitioner for individual connection or for name change by producing requisite documents. However, such request was not granted by the petitioner.
9. In such circumstances, relying upon to the order of APTEL in Appeal No.131/2013 dated 7th August, 2014 in the matter of M/s. Vianney Enterprise v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and others, wherein it was held by APTEL that the State Commission has correctly held that the arrears have to be collected by the Electricity Board from the appellant from the date of detection of error, the Electricity Ombudsman has rightly directed the petitioner to raise the supplementary bill from the date of issuance of merger notice on 19th September, 2017 for merger of HT connections of respondents no. 2 and 3.
10. Therefore, in facts of the case, when the end users of the Page 31 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT individual premises are different and separate and electricity bills are being paid by users of the said premises and merger notice was issued on the ground of want of documents as per clause 4.28 of the Code2015, it cannot be said that there is any error in directing the petitioner to issue supplementary bills with effect from date of notice.
11. Considering the definition of "premises" as per section 2(51) of the Act2003 as well as clause 2(54) of the Code2015, it is open for the petitioner to give different electric connections to a person who produces legal documents showing separate legal entities. Therefore, the applications made by respondents no. 1 to 4 for reduction of electricity load was also required to be considered by the petitioner and to process the application for change of name.
12. In view of above fact situation, as the petitioner detected the continuation of two electric connections in one name contrary to clause 4.28 of the Code2015 for first time on 19th September, 2017 when the notice for merger of two HT connections was issued, the petitioner was rightly directed to revise the supplementary bill from the date of merger notice issued for submission of the documents for change of name of HT connections.
13. With regard to the decision in case of Lakhani Filaments Pvt. Ltd(supra), the same would not be applicable in facts of the case as in the said decision the Court was considering the retrospective applicability of the Page 32 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020 C/SCA/19890/2018 CAV JUDGMENT notification no. 11/2005. Whereas in the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that there was violation of clause 4.28 of the Code2015, however, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to restricting the petitioner to issue supplementary bill from the date of issuance of notice for merger and not from the date of granting connection. Considering the fact that the connections were issued after 2005, notification no. 11/2005 was very much in existence, in spite of that the petitioner has granted two connections in the name of the same person taking into consideration the clause 4.1.17 of the Code2005. In such circumstances when the Code2015 has come into effect from 24th September, 2015 and notice for merger was issued on 19th September 2017, the petitioner cannot be permitted to issue supplementary bill from the date of connection.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ombudsman in facts of the case and the documents on record. In such circumstances, no interference is called for while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
15. The petitions therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged in respective petitions. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 33 of 33 Downloaded on : Fri May 22 22:57:54 IST 2020