NARENDRAKUMAR MEHTA Vs. TORRENT POWER AEC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The endorsement on the board indicates that both the respondents are duly served with notice for final disposal of the petition. However, none of the respondents has appeared either through its Lawyer or through its constituted agent, nor any of them has filed reply controverting the averments made in the petition. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary for the petitioner to effect service of notice of rule issued in the instant petition upon the respondents. Having regards to the facts of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondent No.1 i.e. The Torrent Power A.E.C.Ltd., to grant three electric connections to the Industrial Units constructed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent No.2 to grant Building Use Permission in respect of non-residential Units constructed by the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner i.e. Narendrakumar Mehta is Managing Director of Ajit Reality Pvt.Ltd. Ajit Reality Pvt.Ltd. was the owner of Block No.83/A + 83/B/3+5/2, Type-C of Final Plot No.83/A + 83/B/3+5 of T.P.Scheme of Rakhial. The Managing Director i.e. the petitioner, of Ajit Reality Pvt.Ltd. was desirous of developing the land belonging to the Company. Therefore, he applied to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for final development permission. The record shows that the final development permission was granted to the petitioner on December 13, 2004, which is quite evident from the contents of document produced at Annexure-B to the petition. The case of the petitioner is that after obtaining development permission, the petitioner has constructed three Industrial Units. After construction of the Industrial Units was over, it was the duty of the petitioner to obtain Building Use Permission and thereafter to apply to the respondent No.1 for supply of electric connection to the Units constructed by him. However, without obtaining Building Use Permission, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.1 for supply of electric connections to the Units constructed by him. The said request has been turned down by the respondent No.1, which is quite evident from the contents of letter dated September 1, 2006 addressed by G.M. (Distribution) to the petitioner, a copy of which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-A to the petition. By the said communication, the petitioner has been called upon to produce either Building Use Permission or conditional order of the High Court to enable the respondent No.1 to supply electricity connection to the Units constructed by him. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier.