CHANDRAKANTBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL Vs. TORRENT POWER AEC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner i.e.Chandrakantbhai Ishwarbhai Patel, who is proprietor of Swastik Complex, has prayed to issue an appropriate writ or order directing the respondent No.1 i.e. Torrent Power (Ahmedabad Electricity Co.) Ltd. to grant four electric connections to the Units constructed by him. The petitioner has further prayed to direct the respondent No.2 i.e. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority to grant Building Use Permission to the residential/commercial Units constructed by him.

(2.) The record shows that the petitioner i.e. Chandrakantbhai I.Patel and others were owners of land bearing Hissa No. 1+2/P of Revenue Survey No.123, Final Plot No.133 of Town Planning Scheme No.46 (Motera-Amiyapur-Sughad) situated at village Motera, Taluka & District : Gandhinagar. The petitioner and others were desirous of developing the land belonging to them. Therefore, they applied for development permission, which was granted by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority on February 5, 2005. This is quite evident from the contents of the document produced by the petitioner at Annexure-E to the petition. Mr.J.V.Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states at the Bar that pursuant to the development permission granted by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the petitioner has constructed 57 commercial Units and 12 residential Units. After construction of the 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 connections to the Units constructed by him. However, without obtaining Building Use Permission, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.1 for supply of four electric connections to the Units constructed by him. The said prayer has been turned down by the respondent No.1, which is quite evident from the contents of letter dated February 27, 2006 addressed by the General Manager of the respondent No.1 to the petitioner. A copy of the said letter 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 grant four electric connections as prayed for by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier.

(3.) The endorsement on the board indicates that both the respondents have been duly served with the notice of rule issued in the instant petition on May 4, 2006 by the Division Bench comprising J.R.Vora & M.D.Shah, JJ. However, none of the respondents has appeared either through its Layer nor through its constituted agent, nor any of them has filed reply controverting the averments made in the petition.