1. The petitioners have taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief and direction:
"10(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions by quashing and setting aside the impugned communications dated 03.05.2011 and 18.05.2011 issued by the Respondent (Annexure A and Annexure B) and also further communications dated 01.06.2011, 12.07.2011, 15.07.2011 and 22.07.2011 from Respondent to Petitioner No.1 and Your Lordships further be pleased to direct the Respondent to unconditionally provide electricity as applied by the Petitioner No.1 and supply electricity as per its request from time to time at the subject plot being property bearing Plot No.115, 116, 117 and 210/A aggregating to 21931 sq. meters situated at Kerala GIDC, Near Bavla, Taluka: Dholka, District: Ahmedabad, forthwith."
2. The petitioner has also prayed for below mentioned interim relief:
(C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant stay of operation, execution and implementation of the impugned communications dated 3.5.2011 and 18.5.2011 and also further communications dated 1.6.2011, 12.7.2011, 15.7.2011 and 22.7.2011 from Respondent to Petitioner No.1 and be pleased to direct the Respondent to unconditionally provide electricity as applied by the Petitioner No.1 and supply electricity as per its request made by Petitioner No.1 from time to time at the property bearing Plot No.115, 116, 117 and 210/A aggregating to 21931 sq. meters situated at Kerala GIDC, Near Bavla, Taluka: Dholka, District: Ahmedabad, without insisting the Petitioner No.1 for payment of alleged outstanding dues of erstwhile owner.
3. Mr.
Joshi, learned Senior Counsel has appeared with Mr. H.H.Parikh and Mr. R.H.Parikh, learned Advocates for petitioners and Ms.Bhaya, learned Advocate has appeared for the respondent electricity company.
4. In order to appreciate the relief including interim relief prayed for by the petitioner it is necessary to take into account some of the relevant facts of which reference has been made during the hearing by learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent.
4.1. The petitioners have claimed that somewhere in June 2002 a company named Sandeep Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company in liquidation') was ordered to be wound up by order passed in Company Petition No.201 of 2002 and thereafter the winding up proceedings commenced. While the winding up proceedings of the said company were pending, somewhere in November 2006, Additional Chief Engineer of the respondent electricity company filed its claim before the Official Liquidator of the company in liquidation. The said claim was made for recovery of allegedly outstanding dues towards electricity charges of the company in liquidation. It is claimed that the assets of the company in liquidation were ordered to be sold to Shah Mohanlal Majorimal (hereinafter referred to as the 'erstwhile purchaser') who appeared as the highest bidder in the auction proceedings. In August 2007, the Official Liquidator executed sale deed in favour of the erstwhile purchaser.
4.2. The petitioner has claimed that in November 2007, the erstwhile purchaser of the property in question had applied for 27 HPCSL LT connection. The petitioner has claimed that the respondent did not provide electricity connection and that therefore the erstwhile purchaser preferred an application before the learned Company Court which was registered as Company Application No.11 of 2008 wherein the Court passed order dated 3rd March 2008 directing the respondent company to supply electricity supply connection to the erstwhile purchaser.
4.3. At this stage, it is relevant to take into account the subject matter of the said Company Application No.11 of 2008, which is recorded in the order dated 03.03.2008 as well as the directions passed by the Court in the said order dated 03.03.2008. It is recorded, in para No.1 and para No.2 of the said order dated 03.03.2008 that:
"1. The applicant - auction purchaser has taken out this Judge's Summons seeking declaration from this Court that the applicant is not liable to pay the outstanding electricity dues of the Company in liquidation in respect of land bearing Plot No. 115 to 117, 210/A admeasuring 21931.28 Sq. Mts. Situated at Kerala, GIDC, Nr. Bavla, Tal. Dholka, Dist. Ahmedabad together with factory building and other movable assets purchased by the applicant apropos to an order dated 02.04.2007 passed by this Court in OLR No. 12 of 2007. The applicant has also prayed for the direction to the respondents to take all necessary steps to provide fresh electricity connection in respect of the above property. The applicant has also prayed for the direction to the respondent to arrange for temporary electric connection in the above premises which is purchased by the applicant in auction sale through Court."
4.4. The submission/objection raised by the respondent company is recorded in para 6 of the said order which reads thus:
"6. Mr.
Premal Joshi, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the Company in liquidation did not pay the dues towards electricity to the respondent No.2 and, therefore, the said electricity connection came to be temporarily disconnected on 17.04.1996 and later on permanently disconnected on 01.04.1997. The arrears of amount towards electricity dues are Rs.1,29,37,391.93 ps. for the period between January 1996 and March 2007. He has further submitted that the respondent No.2 has filed Civil Suit No.283 of 1998 for recovery of outstanding dues. The said suit was decreed in favur of the respondent No.2 on 10.12.2003 and accordingly, the Company in liquidation was liable to pay Rs.1,29,37,391.93 ps. Since the Company in liquidation has not paid the said amount, the respondent No.2 had filed Darkhast Application No.70 of 2006 for recovery of Rs.4,29,44,318.24 ps. before the learned Civil Court at Mirzapur. He has further submitted that the respondent No.2 had already intimated to the office of the Official Liquidator to recover the outstanding dues vide letter dated 24.07.2007................The applicant applied for temporary connection on 28.11.2007. After receipt of the application from the applicant, report was sent to the Circle Office on 03.10.2007. Since amount of Rs.4,90,07,904.81 ps. is outstanding, the electricity connection cannot be given to the applicant. Unless and until the outstanding dues of the Company in liquidation are paid, the applicant has no right to ask for electricity connection." (emphasis supplied) 4.5. After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed and recorded in para 10 and 11 that:
"10. The Court is, therefore, of the view that the action of the respondent No. 2 Company in not giving temporary or permanent connection to the present applicant on the ground that the outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner are not paid by the applicant is contrary to the provisions of law as well as the law laid down by this Court.
11. This application is, therefore, allowed with a direction to the respondent No.2 that the applicant should not be denied the electricity connection only on the ground that the dues of the Company in liquidation are outstanding. If the applicant is prepared to comply with all the conditions including payment of necessary installation charges and other expenses, the applicant will have to be given such electricity connection." (emphasis supplied) 4.6. It appears that the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2008 was carried in appeal by the respondent electricity company by way of OJ Appeal No.160 of 2008. The learned counsel for the respondent company has claimed that the said OJ Appeal No.160 of 2008 is pending however in the civil application for interim relief i.e Civil Application No. 324 of 2008, the Court had passed order on 12th February 2009 which reads thus:
"Heard the learned advocates.
Interim stay pending the appeal is refused on condition that the opponent No.1 will abide by the terms and conditions of new electricity connection and power supply; once electricity is connected, the opponent No.1 will pay the energy charges regularly and scrupulously.
It is further directed that all the adult partners in the opponent No.1 firm, M/s. Shah Mohanlal Kajodimal will individually, within 15 days from today, give undertaking to this Court to the effect that in the event the appellant in the above appeal succeeds, the firm and all the partners will be jointly and severally liable to meet the outstanding dues of the appellant-Company in respect of the unpaid electricity charges prior to the date of liquidation.
This application stands disposed of in the above terms."
4.7. Subsequently, the said order dated 12th February 2009 was carried, by the respondent electricity company, before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6912 of 2009 which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4.8. The petitioner has further claimed that in May 2010 the erstwhile purchaser of the property in question executed "agreement to sell" in favour of present petitioner No.1.
4.9. It is also claimed that after the said agreement to sell was executed between the petitioner and the erstwhile purchaser, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 13.05.2010 to the respondent company inquiring as to whether it (i.e. the respondent electricity company) will cater electricity supply in name of the petitioner or not. It is claimed that the said clarification was requested for in view of the pending proceedings between the respondent electricity company and the erstwhile purchaser. The relevant part of said communication dated 13.05.2010 reads thus:-
"Dear Sir, ...........M/s.
Shah Mohanlal Kajodimal has purchased the property of M/s. Sandeep Industries (situated at GIDC, Kerala) through official liquidator nominated by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.
In Official Liquidator order it has been clearly mentioned that "The purchaser shall be liable to pay all statutory dues, if any, dues and payable on the properties of the subject company for the period after the date of winding up order." The payment of such dues for pre-liquidation period shall be settled as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
Presently, M/s. Shah Mohanlal Kajodimal has been catered power supply by GEB as per Court order.
We are contemplating for purchasing the same property for our expansion project. Kindly advise us if GEB can cater power connection in the name of M/s. AIA Engineering Limited at the said premises of M/s. Sandeep Industries, GIDC Kerala.
All necessary documents and court orders pertaining to the said premises are enclosed herewith for your ready reference."
4.10. The petitioner has claimed that the respondent company responded to the said communication dated 13.05.2010 by the petitioner, vide its letter dated 23.06.2010 which reads thus:
"Dear Sir, As you are well aware that M/s. Shah Mohanlal Kajarimal (SMK) had purchased property of M/s. Sandeep Industries located at GIDC, Kerala through Official Liquidator nominated by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. There are huge dues pending in the name of M/s. Sandeep Industries, therefore, this Office had not released connection to SMK. But as per interim order of Hon'ble High Court, on submission of undertaking by all the partners of SMK, connection was released to SMK subject to final decision of Hon'ble Court.
In view of your request, we have examined all the aspects throughly and it has been approved by our Competent Authority that we may release connection in your name on receipt of bank guarantee either from SMK or you for amount payable under PDC reconnection scheme i.e. of about Rs.40 lac as on 31st May, 2010.
(emphasis supplied) Therefore, you are requested to submit your consent within 15 days and then to submit an application in our format alongwith all necessary documents as per your load requirement."
4.11.Thus, the respondent company, with approval of competent authority and after examining all relevant aspects clearly stipulated and assured the petitioner that on tendering Bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.40 lakhs connection will be released.
4.12.The petitioner has claimed that after the said two communications from the petitioner and the respondent the petitioner made offer vide its letter dated 24.06.2010, to deposit the entire sum of Rs.40 lakhs (instead of furnishing bank guarantee as suggested by the respondent in its letter dated 23.06.2010) under the PDC Reconnection Scheme, which, according to the petitioner, was in operation at the relevant time. It is also claimed by the petitioner that the said offer was made by the petitioner on the condition that the respondent will issue "No Due Certificate" with respect to the alleged outstanding dues of the company in liquidation.
4.13.In view of the dispute/controversy raised in present petition it is necessary and appropriate to take into account the said offer of the petitioner company vide letter dated 24.06.2010 which reads thus:
"The Managing Director, UGVCL, Mehsana.
Sub:
............
Ref: ...........
Dear Sir, Thanks for your letter No.GVCL/Regd./Comm./AIA/1263 dated 23.06.2010. We prefer not to give Bank guarantee as it will call for frequent renewal and amendments. Hence, our proposal is as under:-
1) Under PDC reconnection scheme, we are ready to pay approx. Rs.40 lacs as conveyed vide your letter dated 23.06.2010. On payment of that amount, GEB is requested to issue a no dues certificate and also confirmation that GEB will never insist for old dues in future either to M/s. Shah Mohanlal Kajodimal or M/s. AIA Engineering Ltd.
2) AIA will make payment under PDC reconnection scheme and connection as per scheme will be given to AIA.
3) In future, if the judgment is in favour of Shah Mohanlal Kajodimal, then amount of Rs.40 lacs paid will be refunded back to AIA.
Kindly confirm if the above matter is in line with your requirement enabling us to proceed further. Once again we appreciate your approach for arriving at an amicable solution for all concerned parties. For any further clarification and discussions, it will be pleasure of undersigned to be in your office with prior appointment. Kindly advise."
4.14. The petitioner has claimed that in pursuance of the above referred communications dated 13.05.2010, 23.06.2010 and 24.06.2010, the respondent company addressed a letter dated 07.07.2010 and stipulated that it will allow the petitioner to make payment of Rs.40 lacs instead of bank guarantee and on such payment the Executive Engineer, Bopal will issue certificate that no dues are pending in respect of the erstwhile purchaser or of the company in liquidation. The said communication dated 07.07.2010 reads thus:
"Subject: ............
Ref.:- ............
Dear Sir, In response to your letter under reference - 3 our Competent Authority has approved;
1. To allow you to make payment of amount payable under PDC reconnection scheme (about Rs.40 Lac as on 31st May, 2010, instead of Bank Guarantee.
2. On receipt of above payment, our EE Bopal will issue certificate that no dues are pending in respect of M/s. Shah Mohanlal Kajodimal (SMK) or M/s. AIA Engineering Limited in reference to previous dues of M/s. Sandeep Industries located at GIDC, Kerala, and also UGVCL will never insist for old dues in future from either of you.
3. After receipt of payment of amount under PDC reconnection scheme, connection will be released to you under PDC reconnection scheme.
4. If in case judgment come in favour of SMK then amount paid by you as per PDC R/C. Scheme against old dues (approx. Rs.40 Lac) will be refunded without any interest and after adjusting amount allowed towards benefit of contribution of cost of capital assets as per PDC R/C Scheme.
You are, therefore, requested to make the payment of old dues as per PDC R/C Scheme at the office of our EE, Bopal within 30 days from issue date of this letter. To know exact amount, please contact our EE, Bopal."
4.15.Thus, the respondent company expressly declared and assured that on payment of Rs.40 lakhs " UGVCL will never insist for old dues from either of you" and " connection will be released to you under PDC reconnection scheme". Hence the respondent had promised and assured that on payment of Rs.40 lakhs (a) any dues of company in liquidation will not be claimed/insisted from the petitioner; and (b) connection will be granted under PDC reconnection scheme.
4.16. The petitioner has claimed that after having received the said communication dated 07.07.2010 the petitioner made payment of Rs.40 lacs under PDC reconnection scheme, on 17th July 2010.
4.17.The petitioner has further claimed that relying on the stipulation, declaration, assurance and promise by the respondent company vide its communication dated 7.7.2010 it made the said payment of Rs.40 lakhs on 17.07.2010.
4.18.Thereafter the respondent even issued "No Due Certificate" in name and favour of the petitioner.
4.19.Subsequently, in pursuance thereof, in August 2010, the petitioner executed sale deed with the erstwhile purchaser, for purchasing the property in question.
4.20.In background of the aforesaid fact the petitioner has claimed that subsequently in May 2011, the respondent suddenly changed its stand and breached its promise and vide its communication/notice dated 3rd May 2011 informed the petitioner that Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission ('GERC' for short) has introduced clause No.4.1.11 in the Supply Code hence the approval which was accorded vide communication dated 07.07.2010 was being revoked and that if the petitioner required connection at the same premises then it will have to pay the entire dues of company in liquidation. The said communication dated 03.05.2011, which is one of the intimations under challenge, reads thus:
"Subject:-
...............
Ref.:- ...............
Dear Shri, Vide letter under reference (1), you were allowed for releasing connection in your name on receipt of bank guarantee under PDC/RC Scheme of about Rs.40 Lac. Subsequently, same was revised vide letter under reference (2) allowing to make payment against PDC/RC Scheme instead of bank guarantee.
Subsequently, you have made the payment as per PDC/RC norms and applied for new Home Trade Limited, Mumbai Connection for 15000 KVS vide registration dated 27.08.2010 and your application was processed further.
It is to mention that on 20.08.2012, Hon'ble GERC has introduced Clause No.4.1.11 in supply code notifying that any new occupier has to pay dues of previous owner at the premises where connection has ben demanded. Also in case of M/s. Sharda Alloys, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, vide order dated 10.02.2011, has directed to pay entire dues instead of dues payable as per PDC/RC Scheme. Matter of applicability of PDC/RC Circular is referred to GUVNKL and decision is awaited.
In view of the above, we regret to inform you that the approval accorded vide our letter under reference is hereby revoked with immediate effect.
If you need the connection at the same premises, you are requested to pay entire dues on the date of payment after adjustment of the amount paid by you as deposit under PDC/RC Scheme, otherwise, you can ask for refund of your deposit from our EE, Bopoal." (emphasis supplied) 4.21.The petitioner raised objection against the said communication/intimation dated 03.05.2011. The petitioner has claimed that without considering the said objections the respondent demanded payment of Rs.5,72,57,807.65 from the petitioner vide its demand/communication dated 18.05.2011.The petitioner has claimed that it has submitted its reply/response dated 28.05.2011 against the respondent's letter dated 18.05.2011.
[At this stage since the Court time is over (i.e.5:10 p.m), further dictation of the order is deferred until tomorrow i.e. 26.06.2012.] 26.06.2012 4.22.The petitioner has further claimed that on the ground that the amount in question was not paid by the petitioner after the demand/intimation dated 18.05.2011, the respondent company disconnected the power supply with effect from 01.06.2011. It appears that the petitioner herein made representation before the competent authority on or around 14.06.2011 which does not appear to have earned any positive response from the respondent company.
4.23.Aggrieved by the conduct and actions of the respondent, the petitioner has taken out present petition and during the pendency of the petition the petitioner prayed for permission to amend the petition.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on its (i.e. petitioner's) letter dated 13.05.2010 and respondent's reply dated 23.06.2010 and 07.07.2010 (for which reference has been made herein above earlier) and contended that it had, at the very outset and even before executing the sale deed, sought clarification from the respondent company as to whether the electricity connection would be supplied at the premises in question in name of the petitioner or not and in reply the respondent company had categorically and expressly declared and promised that on providing bank guarantee of Rs.40 lacs either from the erstwhile purchaser or from the petitioner, electricity supply would be granted and that relying on the said declaration and promise by the competent authority of the respondent, vide its communication dated 23.06.2010 as well as the communication dated 07.07.2010 (page 132 and 133), the petitioner made payment of Rs.40 lakhs (instead of furnishing bank guarantee as conveyed by the respondent) on 17.07.2012 and that therefore now, the respondent company cannot act contrary to its promise and cannot refuse to supply electricity connection.
6. The respondent company has not disputed and/or disowned in any manner whatsoever its stipulation and declaration dated 23.06.2010 and/or 07.07.2010. The petition is resisted by the respondent and reply affidavit dated 17.02.2012 has been filed. The respondent has claimed that the dues go with the premises irrespective of the person who has purchased the premises. The respondent has based its entire defence on the provision under clause 4.1.11 of the Supply Code. It is not in dispute that the relevant provision i.e. clause No.4.1.11 came into force w.e.f. 20.08.2010. It is claimed by the respondent company that the petitioner is not entitled to get connection at the premise in question until the petitioner makes payment of the dues of the earlier consumer and in view of the provision under the Code the respondent cannot release the connection. It is not in dispute that relying on the said declaration, assurance and promise vide letters dated 23.06.2010 and 07.07.2010, the petitioner made payment of Rs.40 lakhs on 17.07.2010 and changed its position. However, subsequently, after about 10 months, the respondent company revoked its approval, stipulation and declaration vide its communication dated 03.05.2011.
7. The petitioner has, in the aforesaid background, challenged the respondent's communication dated 03.05.2011 and 18.05.2011 and has also challenged the communication dated 01.06.2011, 12.07.2011, 15.07.2011 and 22.07.2011 on diverse grounds, however, mainly on the ground that after having expressly and specifically declared and promised that upon payment of Rs.40 lacs and after having issued "No Due Certificate" on 17th July 2010, the respondent company now cannot claim that there are dues of the company in liquidation and/or that unless such dues are paid, electricity supply connection will not be granted. The said No Due Certificate dated 17.07.2010 reads thus:
" C E R T I F I C A T E This is to certify that there is no dues are pending in respect of M/s. Shah Mohanlal Kajodimal, Ahmedabad or M/s. AIA Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad in reference to previous dues of M/s. Sandeep Industries at village Kerala HT Con. No.17252 in HT CGL as on 17.07.2010."
8. In background of the respondent's communications dated 23.06.2010, 07.07.2010 and above referred No Due Certificate dated 17.07.2010 and the fact that relying on the said documents the petitioner made the payment of Rs.40 lakhs and also the fact that relying on the respondent's promise and assurance vide its said letters dated 23.06.2010 and 07.07.2010 as well as the No Due Certificate the petitioner changed its position and not only paid Rs. 40 lakhs to the respondent but also finalized and executed the sale deed in August 2010 and the fact that at the relevant time the PDC reconnection scheme of respondent was in operation the questions which, inter alia, arise are:-
(a) in light of its declaration and promise vide its letters dated 23.06.2010 and 07.07.2010 and the No Due Certificate, whether the respondent can, now, demand the dues of the company in liquidation, from the petitioner; and
(b) whether the provision which came in operation w.e.f. 20.08.2010 can be enforced against the petitioner when the respondent had made the declaration and promise before the date when provision came in operation.
9. Therefore, the petition requires consideration. Therefore, below mentioned order is passed:
Rule. In the facts and circumstances of the case, rule is made returnable on 27th August 2012.
10. So far as the petitioner's request for interim relief is concerned the petitioner has prayed that the operation, execution and implementation of communications dated 03.05.2011, 18.5.2011, 01.06.2011, 12.7.2011, 15.7.2011 and 22.7.2011 may be stayed and the respondents may be directed to unconditionally provide electricity connection at the property in question i.e. Plot No.115, 116, 117 and 210/A aggregating to 21931 sq. meters at Kerala GIDC, Near Bavla, District Ahmedabad.
11. It is true that the respondent company expressly and specifically stipulated and declared and promised, vide its communication dated 23.06.2010, that upon petitioner or erstwhile purchaser furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.40 lacs, the electricity connection would be granted in light of the PDC reconnect scheme and No Due Certificate will be issued. The said stipulation and declaration reiterated vide respondent's communication dated 07.07.2010 and subsequently on petitioner having paid Rs.40 lacs, No Due Certificate also came to be issued by the respondent company. It is almost 10 months after the aforesaid events that the respondent company has, vide its communication dated 03.05.2011, revoked the approval accorded to the petitioner vide its communications dated 23.06.2010 and 07.07.2010.
12. It emerges from the record that before entering into the sale transaction and before executing the sale deed the petitioner had inquired with the respondent company and sought clarification and it was in response to the said request by the petitioner company that the aforesaid response dated 23.06.2010 and 07.07.2010 was given by the respondent company. It is also true that relying on the said declaration and promise, the petitioner proceeded further and executed the sale deed and changed its position and now the respondent company has revoked the approval which was already granted. The petitioner has already taken irreversible measure and changed its position on the basis of the declarations made by the respondent company.
13. It is not even the case of the respondent company that the stipulation and declaration made vide communication dated 23.06.2010 and 07.07.2010 were made by officer who was not competent to do so on behalf of respondent company. It is also not the case of the respondent company that the PDC reconnect scheme was not available to the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondent company that petitioner has not made the payment and/or that it had not issued No Due Certificate.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, in reply to cross query submitted and clarified that most of the machines have been installed and some of the machines are in process of being installed and the petitioner is only awaiting the power supply connection.
15. In this factual background, and particularly in view of the documents dated 23.06.2010, 07.07.2010 and 17.07.2010 as well as in light of the fact that the petitioner has changed its position irreversibly, and in view of the fact that the petitioner needs electricity supply connection to commence its manufacturing activities and the disconnection is causing hardships and financial loss to the petitioner therefore the relief is prayed for in para 10(C) for direction to the respondent to unconditionally provide electricity. In this view of the matter it appears that this is not a case where interim relief can be denied to the petitioner. However, at the same time, the request of the petitioner to grant interim relief unconditionally cannot be accepted.
16. As mentioned herein above, the Court is not inclined to grant unconditional relief.
17. The issue as to whether the respondent company is entitled to claim payment of the dues of erstwhile owner in light of the provisions contained and introduced in Electricity Supply Code w.e.f. 20.08.2010 i.e. subsequent to the completion of all events starting from 13.05.2010 and concluding on 17.07.2010 i.e. prior to introduction of the said clause is yet to be considered by this Court and that therefore, unconditional relief by way of direction to the respondent company to supply electricity connection cannot be granted.
18. Hence, below mentioned order is passed:
[At this stage, the dictation of further order is deferred at the request of learned counsel for respondent company who wants to take instruction as to the conditions/modalities of the amount to be deposited. (Hence, S.O. to tomorrow i.e. 27.06.2012)] 27.06.2012
19. Yesterday further dictation of the order was deferred so as to enable the learned counsel for respondent company to take necessary and appropriate instructions from the concerned and competent officer. Today, Ms. Bhaya, learned Advocate for respondent company has submitted that Mr.Harchandbhai Devjibhai Rathod, Executive Engineer, UGVCL, Bopal is present in the Court and she has received necessary and appropriate instruction from the respondent company through its said officer that if the petitioner tenders/submits bank guarantee for 50% of the due amount and deposits 50% of the balance amount then the respondent company is agreeable to grant-release electricity supply connection to the petitioner and if the petitioner succeeds in the petition and the deposited amount is required to be refunded to the petitioner then the said amount will be returned to the petitioner with interest at such rate which may be determined by the Court.
20. Therefore, below mentioned order is passed with consent and agreement of learned Advocate for the respondent company. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the conditions as may be considered appropriate by the Court may be passed.
By way of interim relief it is directed that the respondent company shall grant-restore/release electricity supply connection to the petitioner according to its request, need and application on the condition that:
(A) The petitioner shall submit a bank guarantee issued by a Nationalized Bank in the sum of 50% of the claim amount i.e. 50% of Rs.5,72,57,807.65ps.= Rs.2,86,28,903/-
(B) The balance 50% amount i.e. 50% of Rs.5,72,57,807.65ps. shall be deposited, after deducting Rs.40 lakhs therefrom (i.e. from Rs.2,86,28,903 - Rs. 40,00,000/- = Rs.2,46,28,903/-) by the petitioner with the respondent company which may be maintained by the respondent company as a deposit. The respondent company has agreed to grant set off to that extent i.e. to the extent of Rs.40 lakhs so far as the amount is required to be deposited with the respondent company.
(C) The petitioner may tender bank guarantee and deposit the amount as aforesaid within 2 weeks or earlier.
(D) The respondent shall take all necessary actions and steps to install/grant electricity supply connection as expeditiously as possible after the aforesaid amount and requisite charges, as per regulations, are paid.
(E) On the condition that the amount as aforesaid shall be paid/deposited and bank guarantee shall be tendered, the respondent company shall grant/install electricity supply connection of such load as may be mentioned by the applicant in his application in favour of the petitioner at the aforesaid plot.
(F) In view of the stipulation made by learned counsel for the respondent company, it is also directed that if the petitioner succeeds in the petition then the amount shall be immediately returned to the petitioner with interest at such rate which may be fixed by the Court.
Orders accordingly.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top