DINESHBHAI KALABHAI VANKAR Vs. DEPUTY ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi and learned Counsel for the respondent Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya.

(2.) THE applicant ­ an agriculturist seeking electricity supply over the land being Block/Survey No.77 at Village Bhadardi, Taluka Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha applied to the respondent No.1 and proposal was sent accordingly. That an estimate for Rs.1,21,344/= was issued to the petitioner and was paid accordingly. However, the respondent ­ Electricity Company noticed that the petitioner had mentioned Block/Survey No.79 in the application but he was seeking electricity supply in Block/Survey No.77 and thus, mislead the Electricity Company. Besides, the case of the applicant was to be considered under the Scheme which was open for 31 calendar days and that his request for switch over from a normal scheme to 'Tatkal' Scheme was accepted in the special circumstances, but the above anamolies were noticed. At the same time, Block/Survey Nos.77 and 79 both had co-occupants as per the Village Form No.7/12, 8/A and Form No.6 of revenue record. Thus, to avoid any action of dispute in future, the Electricity Company had asked for a consent letter or 'no objection' from the co-occupants / owners of the land in question. However, as the petitioner was unable to comply with the above instructions of the Electricity Company, it was not possible for the Company to supply electricity.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jigar Gadhvi contends that mentioning of Block/Survey No.79 in the application form for seeking electricity was a sheer mistake and due to inadvertence on part of the petitioner who is an illiterate farmer. By filing an affidavit, it was clarified before the Electricity Company that the petitioner was seeking electricity supply in Block/Survey No.77. Besides, the petitioner is an occupant of the land in question for which no prohibitory order of the competent Court was operating. Therefore, the Electricity Company is duty bound to supply the communication to the premise etc. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the order passed by the Division Bench passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.91/2010 about duty cast upon the Electricity Company to supply electricity unless there is any prohibitory order or any injunction is operative restricting the electricity company from supplying electricity.