M/S Mittal Knitwears vs. Punjab Power Corporation Limited And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mittal Knitwears, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.11.2021 passed by respondent No.2, Punjab Power Corporation Limited. The petitioner had applied for a commercial electricity connection under the MS category, paid a total of Rs.3,15,358/- towards new connection fee and additional charges, and an order for installation had already been passed. The application was declined because another electricity connection existed in the SP category at the same premises, bearing account No.32002884429 in the name of M/s Kasam India, which was being used by M/s M.M. Creation, a tenant in a portion of the premises. The petitioner contended that the premises were a large piece of land duly apportioned, and M/s M.M. Creation operated a separate business with a different GST number. The respondents did not file a reply or present any arguments.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to a commercial electricity connection under the MS category. The Court found that the petitioner and M/s M.M. Creation are distinct entities operating in different fields with different GST numbers, and the premises are duly apportioned. This aligns with Regulation 6.5 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2014, which treats separate units in partitioned premises as distinct entities. Since the petitioner's pleaded case was not denied by the respondents, the Court accepted the writ petition. The impugned order dated 10.11.2021 was set aside. The Court directed respondent No.2 to proceed with the installation of the commercial electricity connection under the MS category at the earliest, noting that the order of installation had already been passed and the requisite amount deposited. If any further payment was required, the petitioner was directed to deposit it in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a commercial electricity connection under the MS category, notwithstanding the existence of another electricity connection in the SP category in the same premises, given that the petitioner and the other entity (M/s M.M. Creation) operate distinct businesses with different GST numbers in duly apportioned parts of the premises? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they and M/s M.M. Creation are distinct entities operating in different fields with different GST numbers, and the premises are duly apportioned. They relied on Regulation 6.5 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2014, which states that a consumer shall be treated as a distinct entity if it is a separate unit in duly partitioned premises. The petitioner also highlighted that their pleaded case was not denied by the respondents. Revenue's arguments: None recorded.