SCA/6156/2000 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6156 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- =================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO =========================================== BIPINBHAI I GONAWALA, PRESIDENT, NEW SURAT ELE.CONTRACTOR ASSO. & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus SRAT ELECTRICITY CO.LTD. & 2 - Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance : MR RR MARSHALL for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR MD PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 1, MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3, =================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date : 19/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (1) This petition has been preferred by the petitioners, who are two associations of Licensed Electrical Contractors. The SCA/6156/2000 2/6 JUDGMENT petitioner-associations are registered as Non- Trading Corporations. The grievance ventilated by the petitioners is, as stated in the petition, in the nature of public interest and is an attempt to bring to light the various irregularities, illegalities and gross injustice stated to have been committed by the respondent in performing its duties under The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and in The Electricity Rules, 1956. (2) The following prayers have been made in the petition: (a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Company to act strictly in accordance with law in relation to: (i) laying of service line and apparatus on consumer's premises; (ii) Installation of Sub-station. (iii) Establishment of Distributing Mains, and (iv) Supply of Electricity for building SCA/6156/2000 3/6 JUDGMENT construction; (b) The company be ordered to provide service lines and apparatus on the consumers' premises at its own cost and not recover the same from the consumers- (c) The company be further ordered to install the sub-station at its own cost and in case sub-station is existing to pay the market rent to the consumers for use of the same; (d) Be pleased to order the Respondent No.1 to establish Distributing Mains, further distributing mains and strengthen the distributing mains structure at the cost of the company only by taking revenue guarantee deposit without charging the consumers for the same; (e) The Respondent Company be ordered to give permanent electrical connection for building constructions which are going on beyond a reasonable time; (f) PENDING THE ADMISSION, HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, be pleased to restrain the company from in any way taking any action contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules and be further pleased to pass any interim order in the interest of justice; (g) To grant any other appropriate and just relief/s and also to grant the cost of SCA/6156/2000 4/6 JUDGMENT this petition; (3) On 13.09.2000 when the petition was placed for admission before Division Bench of the High Court the following order came to be made: “ Petitioner No.1 is an Association of Electrical Contractors, who are engaged in carrying out the work of electrification in the private houses. The petitioners have raised a grievance before this Court that the respondent-Company is charging amount not in accordance with law and it is not possible for all the consumers to go to the Court of law to raise their grievance. Under the statute, when a remedy is provided, if the individual is aggrieved he can go to that Forum. The petitioners are carrying on business and, therefore, they are personally interested and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a public interest litigation. Therefore, matter may be placed before the learned Single Judge.” (4) Subsequently vide order dated 25.09.2000 RULE was issued by the learned Single Judge with the observation that “The question of maintainability of the petition is kept open”. SCA/6156/2000 5/6 JUDGMENT (5) It is apparent that the grievance ventilated by the petitioner-associations is primarily a grievance which, if at all, can be raised and agitated by the individual customer of the respondent-Company in the facts and circumstances of a case by availing of the statutory remedy available to the customer. In fact no public interest is involved in so far as the petitioners are concerned. (6) Even otherwise the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-Company states that the provisions of the Act which are under challenge is an Act which has already been substituted by another Act and hence, today the parties are governed by the provisions of the new Act, namely, The Electricity Act, 2003. (7) In the circumstances, it is apparent that not only the petition is not maintainable as such, as remedy to an individual customer is available under the statute, but today the Act SCA/6156/2000 6/6 JUDGMENT is not in existence and hence also, it is not necessary to entertain the petition. (8) The petition is accordingly rejected. RULE discharged. Sd/- [D. A. MEHTA, J] *** B h a v e s h *