High Court · 2013
Case Details
WP(C) 4279/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA This review petition is directed against the order dated 16.08.2013 by which the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4279/2013 was disposed of with the following or der :- (cid:28)DATE OF ORDER : 16/09/2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. H.M. Phukan, learned State counsel and also Mr. D. Nath, learned Standing Couns el, APDCL. Mr. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, submits that the APDCL is ready to provide the electricity connection provided the District Administration prov ides security coverage. He submits that when the APDCL people had gone to the pr emises, law and order situation arose, because of which the electricity connecti on could not be provided. Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioners ref erring to the Annexure-T FIR dated 30.5.2013 submits that due to police inact ion in the matter, the petitioners have been suffering. He submits that appropri ate direction is required to be issued to provide security coverage so that the electricity connection can be provided to the premises belonging to the petition er.
Decision
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Dist rict Administration including the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Guwahati (Respon dent No. 4) to provide security coverage towards installation of the electricity connection to the premises belonging to the petitioners, in accordance with law . This order is passed in view of the Annexure - 5 letter dated 29.5.2013 writte n to the Director of the petitioner company by the APDCL officials. I have Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. Counsel representin 2. g the review petitioner. I have also heard Mr. H.K. Sarmah, learned Standing Cou nsel, APDCL and so also Mr. Z. Mukit, learned counsel representing the writ peti tioner. 3. Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the APDCL submits that the writ petitioner is entitled to get electricity connection, upon compliance of the ter ms and conditions of such connection. At this stage, Mr. Mukit, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has produced the report dated 22.08.2013 addressed to th e Director, M/S Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the petitioner, b y the Manager Paltanbazar Electrical Sub-Division furnishing the intimation in r espect of completion of internal electrical works and Load line Pvc Cable drawn from the meter cabinet in respect of the premises in question. As per the said l etter, the electrical works have been found to be in order. The letter further r eveals that the date and time for release of new service connection shall be inf ormed shortly. The writ petitioner is the builder of the apartment. He is also 4. the owner of the land. While selling the flats, as per the agreements, it has re served the right in respect of the portion of the land under its ownership and p ossession. In this connection the deed of agreement for sale of flats annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the review petitioner may be referred to. Cla use 4(c) and Clause 6 of the said agreement read as follows :- (c) That the purchaser have bound himself to extend full co-operation and facili ties to the vendor and/or other transferees in completion of construction work o f the adjoining properties to be carried out in future on any site of the multi- storied R.C.C. building. It is hereby confirmed that even after transfer and/or assignment of the premises described in schedule-C constructed at the cost of th e purchaser hereto, the vendor shall continue to have as before the right to car ry on the construction work at any site of the multi-storied building, make addi tions, raise stories or put up additional structures and other incidental works connected therewith such as electric, water, sanitary drainage, fittings, parkin g, tank, septic tank, etc., as may be considered fit and proper by vendor and the vendor can use or sell these additional construction as it deems fit. The pu rchaser hereto has no right or authority, whatsoever to object to the aforesaid works carried on or to be performed by the vendor or by any builder approved by the vendor. 6. That if due to natural calamities or natural wear and tear, the said building or any part thereof is demolished or damaged, in that case each space owner/occ upiers of the respective space including the purchase shall have the right to re -construct their floor. The purchasers shall have the right to re-construct thei r floor at their own cost. It is to be mentioned here that the space owners or o ccupiers of the ground floor shall have to re-construct the roof of his/her/its space with six months from the date of destruction or damage and thereafter each floor/space owner of the respective floor of other floor will have to re-constr uct the roof or space on which his/her/its floor stands and in case anyone defau lts to re-construct the roof as mentioned above in that case the space owner/oc cupier of the next floor/space shall occupy the floor or space of the defaulted floor owner/occupiers and can construct his/her/its floor thereon and thus the f loor constructed by such space owner/occupiers or purchasers in priority shall b e deemed to belong to him/her/it/them. It is also mentioned herein that in such case, if the building is reconstructed then no fresh deed of agreement and sale deed will be required by the space owners to get his/her/its space reconstructed . It is also stated herein that height of each floor will be same as of today. It is also made clear that the foundation cost of re-construction of the buildin g will be borne by all the space owner of the building proportionately according to areas of their respective spaces. It is also agreed between the parties that in case of dispute, differences regarding the reconstruction of the building, a n arbitrator shall be appointed amongst the floor owners/occupiers and the arbit rator’s decision shall be final and binding on the space owners/occupiers includ ing the purchasers. Under such circumstances, the space owner shall have undivid ed proportionate right in the land situated underneath the building. However, it is made clear that the vendor will in no way be connected with the reconstructi on, if required. Further, the purchaser shall have no rights/claim/use of the u nsold space & roof/terrace which shall remain the exclusive property of the vend or and the purchaser cannot raise any objection thereto. (Emphasis added) 5. From the above, there is absolutely no manner of doubt that the writ petitioner has retained his right of construction work inclu ding right to get separate electricity connection in respect of a portion of the area retained by him. Although Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the review-pe titioner has referred to Clause 21 and 23 of the agreement but the same is in re spect of right of the purchasers upon purchase of the flats from the vendor, i.e . the petitioner. As per the agreement the writ petitioner having retained his r ight over that portion of the apartment which has not been sold out, the members of the Association of the purchasers cannot raise any objection in getting elec tricity connection. 6. The APDCL has no objection to provide electricity connection to the premises of the writ petitioner. It is for the said authority to see as to w hether as per the Rules, the writ petitioner is entitled to get the electricity connection to his own premises or not. In this connection the above-mentioned le tter dated 22.08.2013 would clarify the position, in terms of which the writ pet itioner is entitled to get separate electricity connection for which necessary g round works have also been carried out. 7. In the writ petition, the basic grievance of the petitioner was non-furnishing of electricity connection to his own premises. When the APDCL mad e it known that the petitioner is entitled to get electricity as per law, the wr it petition was disposed of directing for police protection in case of necessity as it was alleged that inspite of approach being made, there was inaction on th e part of the police. Electricity supply being a basic necessity, the review petitione 8. r cannot stop it to the own premises of the writ petitioner, merely on some pers onal scores. This being the position, the submission that the writ petition was disposed of without hearing the review petitioner will not make any difference a s the review petitioner could not satisfy the Court as to why the writ petitione r should not get electricity connection to his own premises. 9. Above being the position, I do not find any merit in this review petition and accordingly it is dismissed.