- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18. 8. 2006 passed by respondent no. 2 annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the respondents not to disconnect the electric connection of the petitioner installed in its Unit. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the cir cumstances of the case. iv) Award the cost of the petition.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the respondents through its Managing Director issued an Office Memorandum No. 1277 dated 30-5-2005 whereby a procedure has been laid down for granting the electric connection to new independent/industrial feeders. According to the petitioner, the Of fice Memoradum dated 30-5-2005 pro vided that if electricity is to be tapped from a pre-existing independent feeder and the same is to be given to a new consumer it could be done only after fulfilling certain conditions as enumerated in the said of fice memorandum. Clause 5 provided that the prospective consumer will take a No Objection Certificate from the principal consumer after sharing the cost which was incurred in the installation of the independ ent feeder in favour of a pre-existing con sumer. Clause 5 (B) provided that the tap ping from a pre-existing feeder would be possible only when the prospective con sumer takes a No Objection Certificate and gives consent in writing. A copy of the Office Memorandum dated 30-5-2005 has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner unit is situate adjoining to pre-existing unit Shree Bankey Bihari Ispat Pvt. Ltd.-respondent no. 3 and the petitioner after applying for connection took consent from the Director of respond ent no. 3 for tapping of the power line from the independent feeder of 33 KV of the respondent no. 3 and in lieu of the No ob jection Certificate issued on 8-8-2005 by the Director of respondent no. 3, it is ob vious that respondent no. 3 has accepted a sum of Rs. Five lacs towards the cost sharing of tapping the electricity. According to the petitioner, taking of No objection Certificate satisfies the condition of sub-clause B of Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 30-5-2005 and after being satisfied and receiving the money, No Objection Certificate (copy Annexure No. 3) was issued in favour of the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount for temporary electric connection, which stood sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by letter No. 317 EDD (R)/t-5 dated 22-10-2005 thereby demand was raised to de posit a sum of Rs. 3, 39, 107/-and the said amount was got deposited by the peti tioner. On 25-11-2005 the Deputy General Manager, Electricity Distribution Division had written to respondent no. 2 intimat ing for further recourse for granting elec tric connection to the petitioner after grant of NOC dated 8-8-2005. After the No Objection Certificate was submitted, the respondent no. 2 sought an opinion from its Legal Advisor as to whether in the cir cumstances the petitioner could be granted the power connection or not. The coun sel of the respondents after considering the office Memorandum dated 30-5-2005 and the NOC dated 8-8-2005 given by the Di rector of respondent no. 3 and in view of the fact that deposit of the cost sharing was made by the petitioner opined to grant connection to the petitioner. A copy of le gal opinion dated 4-1-2006 has been an nexed as Annexure No. 4, Consequently, the petitioner made payment of security amount, service connection charges and meter inspection fees by Cheque dated 7-1-2006 vide receipt No. 41 and thereafter the respondents entered into a Memoran dum of Understanding/agreement executed with the petitioner on 7-2-2006. As a con sequence of the same, electric connection was installed and the petitioner's unit be came operational.
(3.) THE respondent no. 3 filed Civil Suit No. 09 of 2006, Shree Bankey Bihari Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uttaranchal Power Cor poration Ltd. and others with a prayer to restrain the respondents-UPCL to grant electric connection to respondent no. 5 (pe titioner in the case at hand) from the in dependent feeder of respondent no. 3. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. was filed, which was rejected by the trial court on 2-2-2006. THE plaintiff-respondent no. 3 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the appellate court vide order dated 20-3-2006 and the matter was remanded for being decided afresh. Aggrieved by the order of the ap pellate court, the respondent no. 2 went up before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 897 of 2006 (M/s), PK. Agarwal Vs. Additional District Judge (1st) Rudrapur and five others, while the petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/s) No. 415 of 2006, B. T. C. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional District Judge and others. The writ peti tion filed by the Power Corporation was disposed of with the observation that it will be open for the trial Court to decide the application for interim injunction-ignor ing the observations made by the appel lant Court vide order dated 15-7-2006. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 27-4-2006.;