Krishnakant L. Patel Proprietor vs Torrent Power AEC Ltd. and Another

J.M. Panchal, J.—Rule. The record shows that both the respondents are duly served with notice for final disposal of the petition but none of them has either appeared through lawyer nor through its constituted agent nor 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 regard to the facts of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

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 AEC Limited to grant 72 electricity connections to 72 commercial and residential units constructed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, to grant Building Use Permission with reference to 72 units constructed by him.

The petitioner, i.e. Mr. Krishnakant L. Patel is the proprietor of M/s. Siddhi Developers. From the record of the case, it is evident that Ms.Labhuben Krishnakant Patel purchased Final Plot No. 66 of Survey/ Block No. 1047+1054 to 1111/19 of Town Planning Scheme No. 113 (Vastral), situated at Vastral, Taluka: Dascroi, District: Ahmedabad, from Mr. Gandabhai Kalidas Patel and others by a registered sale deed regarding which necessary entry in Village Form No. 6 was made on August 29, 2005. It may be mentioned that Mr. Gandabhai Kalidas Patel and others, who were the original owners of the lands, were desirous of developing the lands belonging to them. Therefore, they had applied to the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority to permit them to develop the lands. The record further shows that Development Permission was granted to them on May 7, 2005, which is quite evident from the contents of document produced by the petitioner at Annexure-E to the petition. After purchasing the lands from Mr. Gandabhai Kalidas Patel and others, Ms. Labhuben Krishnakant Patel entered into a Development Agreement with the petitioner i.e. Mr. Krishnakant Laljibhai Patel, who is the proprietor of M/s. Siddhi Developers. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of Development Permission, he has constructed 72 commercial and residential units. After construction of commercial and residential 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 electricity connection to the units constructed by him. However, without obtaining the Building Use Permission, the petitioner applied to the respondent No. 1 for supply of electricity connection 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 June 9, 2006, addressed by the G.M. (A.Z.) of the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A to the petition. By the said communication, the petitioner is 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.

This petition was placed for admission hearing before the Court on September 14, 2006, and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, notice for final disposal of the petition was issued. As observed earlier, though the respondents are duly served, they have not appeared before the Court nor contested the petition. This Court has heard Ms. Nisha M.Parikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and considered the documents forming part of the petition.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the following direction are issued.

(1) The petitioner is directed to approach the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority for obtaining the Building Use Permission within thirty days from today with a proper application/ form / format and by paying requisite fee, if any.

(2) The Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority is directed to take decision on the application, which may be submitted by the petitioner, within four months from the date of receipt of the same.

(3) The petitioner shall apply to the Torrent Power AEC Ltd. for providing 72 electricity connections to the 72 commercial and residential units constructed by him with a proper application/ form and by paying charges within a week.

(4) The respondent No. 1 is directed to provide electricity connection within one month from the date of receipt of application on usual terms and conditions.

(5) In case the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority is not approached by the petitioner for the purpose of grant of Building Use Permission within the period stipulated in this order, the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority will inform the Torrent Power AEC Ltd. to disconnect the electricity connection from the premises constructed by the petitioner given pursuant to this order and in such an eventuality, it would be open to the Torrent Power AEC Ltd. to disconnect the electricity connection.

(6) In case the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority does not grant Building Use Permission, it will ask the Torrent Power AEC Ltd. to disconnect the electricity supply provided to the 72 commercial and residential units constructed by the petitioner within a period of fifteen days.

(7) The petitioner shall file an Undertaking before the Torrent Power AEC Ltd. to the effect that in the event the Building Use Permission is not granted by the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the petitioner would have no objection to disconnection of electricity supply to the 72 commercial and residential units constructed by him. This Undertaking shall be filed along with the application/ form meant for the purpose.

Rule is made absolute subject to above referred to directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted.