1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jigar G. Gadhavi appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.L.K.Bhaya for respondent-electricity company.
2. It emerges from the record that petitioner herein had made an application for electric supply connection. The petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has made an application under "Tatkal Scheme" introduced by the respondent company. The petitioner has alleged that for improper and unjustified reasons, the petitioner's application has been rejected though the petitioner has paid all dues and charges etc. as required for the purpose of getting the power supply connection installed. The petitioner has also claimed that inadvertently in the application instead of Survey/Block no.77, Block/Survey number was described as Block/Survey No..79. The petitioner has claimed that the said mistake was inadvertent and bonafide and it is further clarified that the request and application for electricity supply connection is made for Block/Survey No.77, however, without considering the relevant aspects, the petitioner's application has been rejected.
3. The respondent has, filed affidavit, contesting the petitioner. In the reply affidavit, in para-6 to 8, it is observed that:
"6. Respondent submits that the petitioner herein applied for agricultural connection in Block/Survey No.79 of village Bhadardi on 4.12.2009 and made payment of Rs.200/-. It is submitted that there is a heavy backlog of applications of agricultural connections under normal scheme and priority list is maintained. Therefore consumers have to wait for getting agricultural connection till their turn comes in the priority list. The petitioner's application was registered at Sr.No.1661 on 4.12.2009 in the general priority list. To help such applicants, the Govt. of Gujarat approved Tatkal Scheme of 2010. Otherwise in the normal course there is backlog and there is priority list in which consumers are registered and they are waiting for their turn. Under the Tatkal-2010 scheme it was decided to accept the registration under Tatkal Scheme-2010 for switch over to Tatkal Scheme-2010 from registered pending applicants who have registered their applications upto 30.9.2010 in Non-dark zone and Non-tribal areas. The scheme was open for 31 calendar days. The request for switch over from normal scheme to Tatkal Scheme will be accepted from 15.1.2011 to 14.2.2011. The petitioner herein applied under the aforesaid scheme for Block/Survey No.79 under Tatkal Scheme, 2010 and made payment of Rs.500/- vide receipt no.966409 on 16.11.2011 and got his application switched over from normal scheme to Tatkal Scheme, 2010. The petitioner produced village form nos.7 & 12 in respect of land bearing Block/Survey No.79.
7. In response to the application of the petitioner, survey was carried out and the proposal was prepared and forwarded to the Division Office and estimate for Rs.1,21,344/- was issued to the petitioner which was paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that thereafter the respondent received complaint from the persons co-owners/partners of land bearing Block/Survey Nos.79 and 77 that the petitioner herein has committed fraud with the respondent. The petitioner has produced the papers for getting agricultural connection on land bearing Block/Survey No.79 showing that there is borewell in the said land. However true fact is that in Block/Survey No.79 there is no bore or well. The bore is in the Block/Survey No.77. The petitioner has shown Block/Survey No.77 as Block/Survey No.77. The petitioner has shown Block/Survey No.77 as Block/Survey No.79 and misled the officers by giving an impression that it is Block No.79 and there is bore and well there. After getting the aforesaid complaint, the respondent herein and Junior Engineer had alongwith the Talati of village Bhadardi and panchas carried out site panchnama of Block/Survey No.79 and 77. In the said panchnama it was revealed that the petitioner has given incorrect facts and bore well is in Block/Survey No.77 and he had shown it to be in Block/Survey No.79 and demanded connection on Block/Survey No.79 Thereby the petitioner has committed fraud not only with the respondent but also with the co-owners of the land. The petitioner made application for getting agricultural connection in Block/Survey No.79 where there is no borewell. Therefore in absence of bore or well, his application was turned down as per rules and it was filed in accordance with law. The petitioner was accordingly informed about the same and called upon to produce the original receipts for payment of the amount of estimate and apply for refund f the same.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner is high-headed person. The petitioner tried to get disturbed the working of the office of the respondent in discharge of their duties and threatened the officers and pressurised the officers to give connection to the petitioner. It is submitted that on 20.6.2011, the office of the Executive Engineer of the respondent Company was visited by two persons and the persons quarreled with the Executive Engineer and threatened him in presence of Shri P.B.Pandya, Executive Engineer, Bhiloda. The Executive Engineer in this connection made report of the factual aspects to the Superintending Engineer, Himatnagar vide letter dated 13.7.2011. The said letter is self-explanatory. Annexed hereto and marked as "Annexed-R1" is a copy of letter dated 13.7.2011 of the Executive Engineer, Idar Addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Himatnagar. The officers of the respondent have acted after going through the details and factual aspects and as per the terms and conditions of the Tatkal Scheme, 2010 the application of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner has also admitted the aforesaid fact that he has shown Block/Survey No.79 in his application, which according to him was his mistake. He has admitted that co-owners/partners have objected and confirmed that the borewell is not in Block/Survey No.79 and it is in Block/Survey No.77 and he has shown it to be in Block/Survey No.79. Therefore the action of the respondent is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not come out with clean hands and therefore petitioner has no right to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India."
4. The competent authority has passed the order dated 20/06/2011. In the said order it is mentioned that the co-owners in the land/property with reference to which the application for electricity supply was made, had approached the authority and made a complaint that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts including the fact that a bore-well was constructed on the land bearing survey no.79 and that he also misrepresented the facts to the co-owners and obtained consent on same paper.
5. In view of such complaint, the competent authority declined to entertain the petitioner's application. Aggrieved by such decision the petitioner has preferred present petition. However, the petitioner has failed to produce any cogent evidence to satisfy the Court about its assertions and submissions.
6. From the relevant facts mentioned in the reply, more particularly in the order dated 20/06/2011, it emerges that there are disputes between the co-owners of the property in question i.e. property with reference to which electricity power supply connection is requested for. There appears to be some dispute with regard to the claim that a bore-well has been constructed on survey no.79. There is also dispute with regard to the response to the consent allegedly given by the co-owners. In view of such disputes when the concerned authority has declined to entertain application, any fault cannot be found with such order.
7. Accordingly, in view of the disputes and issues which are involved in the case, writ petition is not a proper remedy and such disputed issues cannot be examined in present proceedings. Therefore, present petition does not deserve to be entertained.
8. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner shall approach the competent authority with necessary documents and clarification to demonstrate that co-owners of the property in question have no objection if electricity supply connection is granted. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority and to pursue the application made by him and satisfy the competent authority about the relevant aspects involved in the order. In light of said request by learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition.
9. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition stands disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top