Gujarat High Court
Arunachalam Mohan Servai vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 22 April, 2016
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/10343/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10343 of 2015
==========================================================
ARUNACHALAM MOHAN SERVAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MA PAREKH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. DIVYANGNA JHALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 5
MR DEEP D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 , 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 22/04/2016
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. M. A. Parekh for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Divyangna Jhala for respondent Nos.1 and 5, Learned advocate Mr S. P. Hasurkar for respondent No.4 and learned advocate Mr. Deep Vyas for respondent No.6. Rest of the respondents though served with notice of this court, have not entered their appearance.
2. By filling this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the first respondent to restore electricity supply at petitioner's industrial unit situated at the premises being plot No.1 paiki, admeasuring 600 Sq. yards at Survey No. 96, Final Plot No. 26, T. P. Scheme No.3 (Odhav). The petitioner claims to be in occupation of the said plot and on Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 26 00:42:57 IST 2017 C/SCA/10343/2015 ORDER the plot, the petitioner has constructed factory building.
3. The legality of the ownership of the land as well as the legality of construction of the factory, both have been under cloud and have remained disputed. However, as per the case of the petitioner by paying impact fee, the construction of the factory building has been now regularised under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011. The petitioner struggles to establish his ownership of land and therefore permissibility of occupation of the plot- cum-premises in question under section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, lawful ownership and/or occupation, are the basic conditions for getting electricity connection and supply.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out anything which may suggest that the land in question was legally owned by him. On the contrary, from the Revenue records as well as the distribution statement under the Town Planning Scheme, the said survey No. 96, final plot No. 26 is shown to be in the name of the Collector, that is belonging to the State Government. Further, for the purpose of regularization of ownership, the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 4299 of 2016 before this court, in which the prayer was made to regularise the land occupied by the petitioner. The said prayer to regularise the land occupied by the petitioner was not entertained by this court. The petitioner withdrew the said petition for pursuing his representation already made to the competent authority.
5. In the circumstances, as the claim of the ownership is not settled and petitioner has been pursuing the representation to get his possession / occupation regularised, the petitioner cannot be treated as owner or legal Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 26 00:42:57 IST 2017 C/SCA/10343/2015 ORDER occupier for the purpose of availing electricity supply under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner does not qualify at this point of time to be considered under the said provision. He can also not be treated as lawful occupier.
6. However, since the representation of the petitioner is pending as referred to above, in order that the petitioner is not put to any detrimental position in pursuing his representation, rather than dismissing the petition, the same is kept pending.
7. Therefore, Rule.
8. However, it is clarified that issuance of Rule in this petition and pendency of this petition shall in no way be influencing factor for deciding the representation, which is stated to be made and pending before the competent authority. The authority shall decide the representation though expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, rules and policy applicable, and on merits of the petitioner's case. Neither this order nor issuance of Rule in this petition, amounts to expression of any opinion on merits.
9. It is further clarified that when the representation is decided, the petitioner may move an appropriate proceedings in this petition.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) cmjoshi Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 26 00:42:57 IST 2017