SURESHBHAI LALLUBHAI PATEL Vs. TORRENT POWER AEC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The endorsement on the board indicates that though both the respondents are duly served with notice for final disposal of the petition, none of them 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 i.e. Sureshbhai Lallubhai Patel, who is Chairman of Shrinathaji (Vastral) Co.Op.Housing Society Ltd., 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 34 electricity connections to the residential Units constructed by him. The petitioner has further prayed to direct the respondent No.2 i.e. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority to grant B.U.Permission to him in respect of residential Units constructed by him.

(3.) Radadiya Rekhaben Arjanbhai was the owner of Revenue Survey no.912/2+913 of Town Planning Scheme No.106 (Vastral -Ramol) of village Vastral, Taluka : Dascroi, District : Ahmedabad. She was desirous of developing the land belonging to her. Therefore, she, with her Power of Attorney Holder, applied to Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority to grant development permission. The record shows that the development permission was granted on April 18, 2006, which is quite evident from the contents of document produced at Annexure -D to the petition. The petitioner, who is Chairman of Shrinathaji (Vastral) Co.Op.Housing Society Ltd. purchased the property from Ms.Rekhaben Arjanbhai Radadiya by a deed dated April 17, 2006, a copy of which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure -C to the petition. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the development permission granted to original owner Ms.Rekhaben, the petitioner has constructed 33 residential Units. After construction of the residential units was over, it was the duty of the petitioner to obtain Building Use Permission from the respondent No.2, and thereafter to apply to the respondent No.1 for grant of electricity connections to the residential units constructed by him. However, without obtaining Building Use Permission, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.1 for grant of 34 electricity connections. The record shows that the said request has been turned down by the respondent No.1, which is quite evident from the contents of letter dated November 9, 2006 addressed by 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 Building Use Permission to enable the respondent No.1 to grant electricity connections to the residential Units constructed by him. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier.