EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. NATUBHA JALAMSANG RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr.Hardik B.Shah and Mr.Bhargav D.Karia, learned advocates, waive service of notice of RULE for respondents Nos.1 and 2, respectively.

(2.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers: (A) To issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 20.7.2010 passed by Hon'ble the Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, the respondent no.2 in Case No.20 of 2010 and reject the Case No.20 of 2010 and uphold the decision of the CGRF, PGVCL, Bhavangar in Case No.89 of 2009 for the reasons stated in the Memo of Petition and in the interest of justice; (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 20.7.2010 of the Hon'ble the Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, the respondent No.2 in Case No.20 of 2010 for the reasons stated in the Memo of Petition and in the interest of justice; (C) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other appropriate relief as the nature circumstances of the case may require. (D) To award the cost of this petition.

(3.) MS.Lilu K.Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order of the Electricity Ombudsman is erroneous and against the contents of Circular dated 18.06.1996, which is applicable to the petitioner ? Electricity Company. It is submitted that the said Circular permits shifting transfer of an electricity connection only to another place in the same village, but not to another village, which aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Electricity Ombudsman while passing the impugned order, though a specific contention in this regard was raised. It is further submitted that for availing of an agricultural connection, a priority list is prepared and agriculturists are waiting in the queue for their turn. If transfer shifting of an electricity connection from one village to another is permitted dehors the Circular, it would amount to depriving other agriculturists of their turn to get the connection. The learned advocate for the petitioner has further contended that in the 22 cases cited by respondent No.1, agricultural connections were given as a one-time measure for which approval was given by the Board of Directors of the petitioner ? Electricity Company, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, whereas in the present case, no such approval has been given. That the Officer who has accepted the application of respondent No.1 for shifting of the Electricity Connection and has processed the same is facing departmental proceedings for acting dehors the Rules/ Circular of the Company. Merely because the procedure has been completed dehors the Rules, it does not mean that the respondent No.1 should be granted an electricity connection by shifting the said connection to another village when the Circular does not provide for the same.