SARVODAY CORPORATION Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Agricultural Industrial Unit was established on an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 1990/46 situated at Mehsana. The said agricultural unit failed to discharge their obligations and commitments qua certain financial institutions and also qua the Gujarat Electricity Board. An amount of Rs. 5,18,998-78 was the dues of the Board against the said agricultural industrial unit. The industrial unit was sold out under a duress, was dismantled and was removed from upon the agricultural land. A partnership firm, after obtaining a certificate of clear title, after a due public notice, purchased the said agricultural land. It was later on converted into the non-agricultural land and the necessary No Objection Certificate was obtained for the construction of a commercial complex. Later on the commercial complex has come up with atleast 85 shops therein. The builder Corporation had asked for the electric connection in the above said shops, but the same is denied taking resort to the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The question is as to whether the Board can insist for the payment of the dues which were against the agricultural industrial unit, which existed on the agricultural land.The answer to this question necessarily must be given in negative, regard being had to the clear provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The precise rationale behind the negative answer is the clear concept that the Commercial Complex cannot be said to be a legal representative of the defaulter consumer unit whereat the former may represent the latter in eye of law from whom the payment of the bills for the energy sold to the latter could be sought to be achieved.

(2.) The land in question was the agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 1990/46 situated at Mehsana. An Agricultural Industrial Unit known as M/s. Sarvoday Agricultural Iron and Steel Works had come up on the said land. The said unit was provided with the electricity connection by the Gujarat Electricity Board, the respondent No. 1 herein. It appears that the said unit could not pay a substantial amount of the electrical bills anounting to Rs. 5,18,998-78. The electric connection, therefore came to be disconnected, acting under the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1990. The said unit could not fulfil his obligations qua certain financial institutions and therefore, the said unit, excepting the land was disposed of in the recovery proceedings. The land upon which the above said unit existed had become vacant but it was an agricultural land. This had happened because the unit which was established upon the said land was basically an agricultural industrial unit for which no N.A. permission in respect of the land was necessary. The petitioner M/s. Sarvoday Corporation wanted to purchase the above said land with a view to construct a shopping complex over the same. The petitioner-Corporation was vigilant enough to approach Advocate Shri S. M. Patel, stationed at Mehsana with a request for a clear title certificate. A public notice in this respect was issued and admitedly the Respondent No. 1 herein Gujarat Electricity Board had not raised any claim possibly because nothing could be said to be due from the land owner. Later on, a certificate regarding the clear title of the land was given and the land came to be purchased by the petitioner Corporation. The necessary permission for the conversion of the land for the Non-Agricultural purpose was obtained. The plans were got approved and ultimately a commercial complex comprising of 85 shops has come up on the land. The petitioner-Corporation had requested the Gujarat Electricity Board for the electric supply. Any how, this prayer has been turned down on the ground that, no such connection can be given to the petitioner-Corporation unless and until the previous dues against M/s. Sarvoday Agricultural Iron and Steel Works are cleared off. This is apparent from the communication dated May 27, 1994. The reliance in this respect is sought to be placed upon a circular letter dated June 17, 1986.

(3.) The contention coming from the learned Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that, such a compulsion regarding the payment of the dues of the earlier owner cannot be insisted upon, regard being had to the interpretation of the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1910. Subsec. (1) of Sec. 24 which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition may be reproduced thus :-