CHANDULAL MARGABHAI PATEL Vs. TORRENT 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 through its Lawyer nor 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 petition, upon the respondents. Having regards to the facts of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) By filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent No.1 i.e. The Torrent A.E.C.Ltd., to supply electricity connection to Bungalow No.3 belonging to him, which is situated at Chandkheda, without insisting for production of Building Use Permission. 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 the Bungalow situated at Chandkheda.

(3.) Revenue Survey No.621/1/2 forming part of Town Planning Scheme No.22 (Chandkheda), Taluka & District : Gandhinagar, belonged to Patel Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Patel and others. Mr.Bipinbhai Patel and others were desirous of developing the land belonging to them. Therefore, they applied to Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority to grant development permission. Accordingly, the development permission was granted on October 14, 2003, which is quite evident from the contents of document produced at Annexure -B to the petition. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased Plot No.3 admeasuring 1837 sq.mts. from the original owners by a deed dated March 25, 2005. A copy of the deed is produced by the petitioner at Annexure -A to the petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that he entered into an agreement for construction of one Bungalow on the said plot with Uma Corporation and accordingly, the Bungalow was constructed. After construction of the Bungalow was over, it was the duty of the developer and/or the petitioner to obtain Building Use Permission and thereafter to apply to the respondent No.1 for supply of electricity connection to the residential unit constructed by him. However, without obtaining Building Use Permission, the developer applied to the respondent No.1 for supply of 8 electricity connections to the residential Units, which included the Bungalow of the petitioner also, constructed by him. The record shows that the said request was turned down by the respondent No.1, which is quite evident from the contents of letter dated November 20, 2006 addressed by General Manager of the respondent No.1 to Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Patel. A copy of the said letter is produced by the petitioner at Annexure - C to the petition. By the said communication, Bipinbhai Dahyabhai Patel is called upon to produce Building Use Permission to enable the respondent No.1 to grant supply of electricity connection to the residential Unit constructed by him. Under the circumstances, the petitioner, who is owner of the bungalow constructed on Plot No.3, has filed the instant petition and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier.