1. Heard Mr. Keyur A. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned advocate for respondents No.3, 4 and 5. Mr. Hasurkar, learned advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 has filed leave note.
2. Petitioner has taken out present petition, seeking below mentioned reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.09.2011 by which the electricity connection being no. 7000526/00059/7 is re-connected in the name of the petitioner;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing to the respondent authority to cancelled the electric connection being no.7000526/00059/7 which is existence in the name of the petitioner;"
3. Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has sold and transferred the property in question, i.e. parcel of land bearing No.24, situate at village Thuvar, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha. He has also submitted that in respect of the said parcel of land, electricity connection was supplied by respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that though the sale of the property is effected, respondents No.1 and 2 have not made any change in the name of the consumer for power supply at the property in question and his (i.e. petitioner's) name still continues as consumer in respect of the said land. Therefore, in the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to delete the petitioner's name as consumer in connection with the electricity connection bearing No.700526/00059/7.
4. Respondents No.1 and 2 have not filed any response, stating the reasons as to why necessary change in name of consumer is not effected, despite the requests made by the petitioner.
5. However, respondent No.3, on behalf of respondents No.3, 4 and 5, has filed affidavit and claimed that the petitioner had sold the land to one Mr. Ashokbhai Chunilal Joshi, vide sale deed dated 22.10.2007 and subsequently, said Mr. Ashokbhai Chunilal Joshi sold the said land to one Mr. Ganeshbhai Meghrajbhai Jegoda. The said three respondents have also claimed that subsequently, said Mr. Ganeshbhai Meghrajbhai Jegoda sold the land to present respondents No.3, 4 and 5, vide sale deed dated 23.2.2010 bearing No.487. The said three respondents have claimed that by virtue of the said sale deed dated 23.2.2010, they have become the owner of the land in question and since the date of sale, they are in possession and in occupation of the land in question.
6. What is more important for the purpose of the petitioner is the fact that the said three respondents have asserted that after purchasing land in question, they have repeatedly requested the petitioner to supply necessary 'No Objection Certificate' and to sign the relevant documents, which are required by respondents No.1 and 2 for making appropriate change in the name of consumer and getting the connection transferred in their name. In support of their claim that they have purchased the land in question, they have relied on the typed copy of the sale deed, which is available on record of present petition at pages 40 to 45 and they have also relied on the document at pages 46 to 50 to support their contention that since 23.2.2010, they are the purchasers and consequently, the occupier and owner of the land in question. Actually, the sale is not in dispute and the petitioner also does not deny or refuse the sale.
7. Learned counsel Ms. Mandavia appearing for respondents No.3, 4 and 5 has also heavily relied on the document at Annexure-R/II, page 84, which purports to be a notice issued by the advocate on behalf of respondents No.3, 4 and 5, intimating the petitioner that he is unnecessarily causing difficulties in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question and he is not cooperating in getting the electricity connection transferred in name of respondents No.3, 4 and 5 by not supplying NOC and not signing relevant and necessary documents including the transfer application. The said details have also been stated by the said respondents in affidavit dated 1.2.2012. In the affidavit filed by respondent No.3 - deponent, it is stated in paras 4 to 7, pages 78 to 81, which are as under:
"(4) I say and submit that I am the purchaser of the land bearing survey No.14 paiki 1 and Land survey No.24 paiki 2 admeasuring Hectare Ara. Sq.M. 5-55-43 and I am in possession of the Suit land. Earlier the petitioners were the owner of the land and they have sold the land to Ashokkumar Disavala on 22/10/2007. Said Asokbhai has sold the land to Ratanji Patel and Ganarbhai Jhagoda on 12/5/2005 and they have sold the land to me on 23/2/2010. Since then I am in the possession of the said land.
(5) I say and submit that in all Sale Deeds there is a clause that the electricity connection of the land requires to be transferred in the name of the purchaser and it is a duty of the seller to sign over the documents, which are necessary. But the petitioner has never signed over the transfer papers, inspite of number of requests were made by me. On one had the petitioner is not cooperating by not signing the papers on transfer application and on the other hand insisting the Vij Company to disconnect the connection saying that it is in his name and ultimately he wants to harass me. I have never forced to anybody to connect the connection. But if the connection is disconnected, huge damage and loss would occurred to me.
(6) I say and submit that it is absolutely wrong fact that the petitioners have intimated several times to me about the transferring the connection. On the contrary I have made number of requests to the petitioners to sign over the transfer forms. I requested number of times to the petitioner to sign, when ever it is necessary in the transfer forms. But he has never taken interest and given an application to the Vij Company to disconnect my connection. I have produced all the relevant and necessary papers to the Vij Company showing them I am the owner of the land and the petitioner has nothing to do with the connection. The intention of the petitioner is very much clear to harass me by not transferring the electricity connection. It is true and correct that I have filed criminal complaint and for quashing all the complaint the matter is pending before the Honorable High Court.
(7) I say and submit that the petitioner has not given cooperation in transferring the connection and they were threatening me that they would get the electricity connection disconnected. Therefore, I gave a notice to the Deputy Engineer, Vij Company on 16/10/2010 and requested them if the petitioner gives and Application for disconnection of the electricity, without my sent, the electricity connection should not be disconnected. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE "R/I" to the Affidavit in Reply is a copy of the notice dated 16/10/2010 issued to the Deputy Engineer Vij Company. I say and submit that not only that, but I given notice to the petitioner also on 2/7/2011, contending that it is a duty to cooperate in transferring the electric connection and sign over the papers within 7 days. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE "R/II" to the Affidavit in Reply is a copy of the notice dated 2/7/2010 served upon the petitioner. However, till date the petitioner is not signing over the transfer papers and pressurizing the officers of the Vij Company to disconnect the connection, so that I cannot run my business. I say and submit that the petitioner has contended that I am the purchaser of the Suit premises and if I want to continue the electric connection, then I should be given an Application and should transfer the connection in my name. If the petitioner is saying so, then why he is restraining the officers of the Vij Company to transfer the connection in my name? The petitioner should read the agreement in proper manner and give cooperation in transferring the electric connection in my name."
8. The petitioner has not filed any counter/rejoinder affidavit opposing the details mentioned by respondents No.3, 4 and 5 in the said affidavit dated 1.2.2012. The details mentioned by respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have remained uncontroverted on part of the petitioner.
9. Under the circumstances, it appears that it is on account of the defaults on the part of the petitioner that appropriate change in name of consumer has not taken place and respondents No.1 and 2 have not been able to take any action. Under the circumstances, it is for the petitioner to take necessary steps and to extend cooperation to respondents No.3, 4 and 5 to get the power supply connection transferred in their name. Since it has emerged from the record that it is because of the defaults on the part of the petitioner that respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have not been able to get the power supply connection changed in their name, despite their attempts, the petition is without any merit and the petition does not deserve to be accepted.
10. Actually, the petitioner has not mentioned the above stated details, which have been brought on record by respondents No.3, 4 and 5 and therefore, the said defect on the part of the petitioner would amount to suppression of relevant facts.
11. From the details mentioned by respondents No.3, 4 and 5 in the affidavit and documents annexed to the said affidavit, particularly the documents at Annexure-R/II, page 84, it also appears that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by not stating correct and complete facts.
12. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Committee.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top