SAKAL Vs. TORRENT POWER AEC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The endorsement on the board indicates that though both the respondents are duly served 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 regard 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 i.e. Suresh K.Devadiga, who is Chairman of Sakal (Shrinandnagar - IV) Co -operative Housing Society Ltd., has prayed to issue appropriate writ directing the respondent No.1 i.e. Torrent Power AEC Limited to grant 33 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 Building Use Permission to him in respect of the units constructed by him.

(3.) Revenue Survey No.502/A/1/Part, 2/F and 3/5 totally admeasuring 17259.60 sq.mts. of Development Plan of village Vejalpur, Taluka, City and District Ahmedabad belonged to Sakal Co -operative Housing Society Ltd., (Vibhag -II (F) and 3/Paiki). The Chairman of the Society was desirous of developing the land belonging to the Society. Therefore, he applied to the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority for grant of development permission. The development permission was granted on July 2,2001, which is quite evident from the contents of the document produced by the petitioner at Annexure "B" to the petition. Sakal Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. was amalgamated with two other societies and the name of the new society was given as Sakal (Shrinandnagar - IV) Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. vide order dated August 16,2001, a copy of which is produced at Annexure A/1 to the petition. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the development permission granted by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority the petitioner has constructed 32 residential units. After the construction of the residential units was over, it was the duty of the petitioner to obtain Building Use Permission from the competent authority and, thereafter,to apply to the respondent No.1 for grant of electricity connection to the units constructed by him. However, without obtaining Building Use Permission, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.1 for grant of electricity 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 communication dated September 29,2006 addressed by the General Manager of the respondent No.1 to the petitioner, a copy of which is produced at Annexure "C" to the petition. By the said communication the petitioner has been called upon to produce Building Use Permission or conditional order of the High Court to enable the respondent No.1 to grant supply of 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.