Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010116602016 2026:GAU-AS:8593 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4816/2016 SARAIGHAT BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED and 2 ORS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT OLD GLASS FACTORY COMPOUND, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, FATASIL, GHY- 9, DIST.- KAMRUP M, ASSAM. 2: ABHISHEK AJITSARIA S/O- SRI SANTOSH KUMAR AJITSARIA DIRECTOR OF SARAIGHAT BUILDERS PVT. LTD. OLD GLASS FACTORY COMPOUND NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD FATASIL GHY- 9. 3: SANTOSH KUMAR AJITSARIA S/O- LT. SITARAM AJITSARIA R/O - 11 NANAK ROAD 2ND FLOOR GMCH ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY- 5 VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED and 4 ORS. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GHY- 1. 2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL CIRCLE- 1 APDCL LAR ULUBARI GHY- 7. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER COM-REV Page No.# 2/9 APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY- 1. 4:THE AREA MANAGER IRCA- 1 APDCL LAR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY- 1. 5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER FATASIL ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL LAR FATASIL FATASIL AMBARI ROAD GHY- 9 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R SURANA, MS. A CHOUDHURY,MR. D UPAMANYA,MS. D SARAF,MR. D NANDI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, MR. P N GOSWAMI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 16.06.2026 The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer: “In the premises aforesaid, Your humble petitioners pray that Your Lordships may be pleased to issue Rule, call for the records, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to – (a) Why a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction of like nature should not be issued on the respondents for enforcement of the right of the writ petitioner with direction to provide an additional load to the tune of 377KW (over the Page No.# 3/9 existing load of 12KW) aggregating a total electricity load of 389 KW under Commercial & Domestic category in the name of the Petitioner No.1- Saraighat Builders Pvt. Ltd., for use on the land and building morefully described in para 3 and 33 above; and (b) why the demand made by the respondents upon the Petitioner No.1 Company i.e. Saraighat Builders Pvt. Ltd., vide Letter No. APDCL/ AM/ IRCA-1/T-03(A)/194 dated 09.03.2016 (Annexure- 24) and bill dated 09.03.2016 for Rs.60,12,530/- (Rupees Sixty lakh twelve thousand five hundred thirty only) (Annexure-25) should not be declared as illegal and why the said letter and demand should not be set aside and quashed in respect of the Petitioners herein; and (c) why the Respondents should not be commanded to forbear from refusing to release electricity supply to the apartment building of the Petitioner No.1 constructed on land described in para 3 and 33 above or from using any coercive measure to realize any dues from the Petitioners on account of M/s. Ajitsaria Rice Mill; and (d) why the letter by the Area Manager, IRCA-1 under memo No. APDCL/AM/IRCA-1/T-03(A)/588 dated 11.07.2016 wherein by referring to letter No. APDCL/ GM(Com-Rev)/WV(O)/ 2014-15/PT/52(a) dated 30.06.2016 the Petitioner No.1 was informed that the waiver of 80% surcharge was not acceded to, further asking the petitioner No.1 to collected their two cheques is illegal and it restrains the right of the Petitioners to seek legal remedy and reliefs against the illegal demand and the said letters be set aside and quashed; and (e) why the respondents should not be directed to dismantle and remove the two old and dilapidated electricity poles with disconnected electricity line which are standing over the plot of land described in para 3 and 33 above with such time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, failing which thepetitioners may be permitted to dismantle and remove the same from their land; and (f) upon hearing the parties on the cause or causes if any being shown, or lack of it, be pleased to make the Rule absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) above; (g) and/or be pleased to pass such further or other order or orders as to Your Lordships may seen fit and proper, if necessary, by moulding reliefs; - AND - Page No.# 4/9 Pending disposal of the writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents to release the additional load to the tune of 377KW (over the existing load of 12KW) aggregating a total electricity load of 389 KW under. Commercial & Domestic category in the name of the Petitioner No.1- Saraighat Builders Pvt. Ltd., for use on the land and building morefully described in para 3 and 33 above, on receipt of a sum of Rs.17,86,247/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Eighty Six Thousand TwoHundred Forty Seven Only) after 80% waiver of surcharges (i.e. Rs.42,26,283/-) under protest in terms of letter No. letter under memo No. APDCL/GM(Com-Rev)/WV(O)/2014-15/PT/41(a) dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure-28).” And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. As would be reflected, the dispute is with regard to providing the additional load of electricity to the petitioners. 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner no.1 is a Company and the petitioner no.2 is one of the Directors of the petitioner no.1 whereas the petitioner no.3 is the owner of the land on which the petitioner no.1 - Company is constructing an apartment building. It is projected that initially there was an electricity connection of 12 KW. However, with regard to the construction of the apartment, the petitioners had made an application for grant of additional load security of 377 KW in the year 2014. The matter was examined by the respondent authorities and cost of Rs.20,31,591/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety One) was estimated. It is contended that out of the aforesaid cost, Rs.7,45,172/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy Two) was paid to the respondents with the stipulation that the balance would be paid on the installation. However, the load security was not provided. The petitioners were made to understand that due to certain dues to an entity called M/s. Ajitsaria Rice Mill, the connection was not provided. Page No.# 5/9 4. I have heard Shri D. Nandi, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL appearing for the contesting respondents. 5. Shri Nandi, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned action in not providing the connection is absolutely unreasonable and arbitrary as irrelevant factors have been taken into consideration.He has submitted that out of the cost estimated, an amount of Rs.7,45,172/- (Rupees Seven Lakh FortyFive Thousand One Hundred SeventyTwo) has already been paid with an assurance to pay the balance as and when the connection is provided. He has categorically submitted that there is no relation or connection with M/s. Ajitsaria Rice Mill which has been brought in as a reason not to provide the additional load / connection. He has submitted that the petitioners are suffering a lot because of the unreasonable action of the APDCL. Lastly, the learned counsel has also submitted that though this writ petition was instituted in the year 2016, till now no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed which would amount to admitting the assertion has made on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Per contra, Shri Pathak, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the impugned action is taken bona fide and in accordance with law. By referring to the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations 2017, the learned counsel has submitted that for a new connection, there are certain requirements. In this regard, he has referred Clause 5.8.3.1 (c) which is with regard to a requirement of ‘no-duescertificate’. He has also referred to Clause 6.3.17 (b) which is with regard to a consumer having more than one connection and being defaulter in any of such connection. He has submitted that it is because of this reasons which is backed by the law holding the field, that the impugned action has been taken. Page No.# 6/9 7. He has also drawn the attention of a communication dated 09.03.2016 issued by the petitioner no.2 to the APDCL whereby acknowledgment was given regarding receipt of the outstanding bill in the name of M/s. Ajitsaria Rice Mill. It was also stated that they were willing to avail certain scheme for exemption of old outstanding bills. 8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 9. At the outset, this Court has noted that there is no counter affidavit in its writ petition.Though there may be a presumption that the contentions being rebutted, those can be treated to be admitted, this Court will independently examine the averments along with the materials. At this stage, this Court is reminded of the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2592 wherein it has been laid down that averments of the petition if not denied can be deemed to be admitted. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had applied for an additional load security of 377 KW in the year 2014 for which a cost of Rs.20,31,591/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety One) was estimated. It is also not in dispute that out of the aforesaid estimate, the petitioners had paid an amount of Rs.7,45,172/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy Two). The reason for not providing the connection is certain dues from one M/s. Ajitsaria Rice Mill. 11. To justify the impugned action, the learned Standing Counsel has referred to two provisions of the Regulation of 2017 which are extracted herein below: “5.8.3.1 Change of name due to change in ownership of the occupancy. Page No.# 7/9 c) Where the applicant has purchased an existing property whose electricity connection has been disconnected, it shall be the applicant's duty to verify that the previous owner has paid all dues to the licensee and obtained a no-dues certificate from him. In case such no-dues certificate has not been obtained by the previous owner before change in ownership of property, the new owner may approach the licensee for such a certificate. The licensee shall acknowledge receipt of such request and shall either intimate in writing the dues outstanding on the premises, if any, or issue a "no-dues certificate within 1 month from date of receipt of such application. 6.3.17 Recovery of Arrears. b) If a consumer has more than one service connections in his name and power supply has been disconnected for defaults in payment of electricity dues in any of the service connection, the Distribution Licensee will have the right to claim the arrear against any of the other service connection after serving notice in this regard. “ 12. The aforesaid provisions have to be applied vis-a-vis, the factual background. In the instant case, there is a categorical assertion in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioners do not have any connection whatsoever with M/s. Ajitsaria Rice Mill. For ready reference the relevant averments are extracted herein below: “3. That the Petitioners state that Sri Santosh Kumar Ajitsaria (Petitioner No.3) is the sole owner and possessor of a plot of land ad-measuring about 17.10 Ares covered by Dag No. 242, 245 and 701 of K.P. Patta No. 104 of Revenue Village - Sahar Fatasil Block No. 1, under Mouza Beltola, in the District of Kamrup (Metropolitan), Assam. The said land islocated at the locality which is more popularly known as Old Glass Factory Compound at N.S. Road, Fatasil, Guwahati - 781 009. The said land has stood duly mutated in the name of Sri Santosh Ajitsaria since the year 1974 on the strength of mutual partition of the said land by virtue of order dated 05.12.1974 passed in Mutation Case No. 290/1973-74 and since then, the said Sri Santosh Kumar Ajitsaria has been enjoying peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the said land. 28. That the petitioners state that the Petitioner No.3 has been enjoying Page No.# 8/9 electricity connection since the year 1974 in his name and thereafter from 1992 in the name of the firm of his HUF i.e. Pallavi Engineering Works. Moreover, the Petitioner No.1 Company has also been enjoying electricity connection since year 2012 and since then, the APDCL had never claimed any pending bills on account of M/s. Ajitsaria Rice Mill because their officers wereaware that the said Ajitsaria Rice Mill was never on any part of the land owned and possessed by the Plaintiff and land developed by the Petitioner No.1 Company to construct a multi-storied building thereon. On the other hand, the said Ajitsaria Rice Mill has been reported to be discontinued since the year 1974-75. It is further stated that one M/s. Sharma Rice Mill was established in the land adjacent to the land of the Petitioner No.1 and 3, which functioned from around the year 1976 to 1992 and since the year 1992, the said M/s. Sharma Rice Mill was also totally closed. Therefore, even assuming that there is any outstanding receivable by the Respondents from Ajitsaria Rice Mills, the said claim is not attributable to or recoverable from the Petitioners and moreover, the said claim is also hopelessly barred by limitation.” 13. Apart from the aspect that the said averments have not been denied, the respondent authorities have also not been able to provide any materials or records to show any connection of the petitioners with the said M/s. Ajitsaria Rice Mill. Though the aforesaid two provisions of the Regulation of 2017 have been enacted to provide a safeguard to the respondent corporation so far as public revenue is concerned, the same can be applied only when the facts require such application.In the instant case however, the factual background would not justify invocation of the aforesaid two clauses. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that the action not to provide the electricity connection on the aforesaid ground is unreasonable and accordingly, is interfered with. The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to provide the additional load security and correspondingly, the petitioner is required to pay the balance amount which has already been quantified. 15. Dismissal of this writ petition may not be an absolute bar for the Page No.# 9/9 respondent authorities to initiate recovery proceedings, if so permitted under the law from the entity from whom the dues are pending. JUDGE Comparing Assistant