JUDGMENT 1. - The Petitioner J.K. Industries Limited which is a company registered under the Companies Act has challenged the action of respondent Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, by which an attempt has been made to recover, electricity charges in connection with the demand pertaining to one M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Company is a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is manufacturing tyres having its plant at Kankroli. The petitioner company is a consumer of respondent electricity company and its consumer number is UC/6-1-0009. In terms of the amended agreement dated 8.11.2001, entered into between the petitioner and the electricity company. the petitioner's demand is of 10.5 MVA and the petitioner has also given cash security deposit of Rs. 2,22.02,462/-. It is not in dispute that petitioner company is paying electricity dues regularly and there is no outstanding amount of electricity dues in so far as petitioner company is concerned. However, the respondent No. 2 served a bill of Rs. 1,92.18.207.02 towards outstanding amount by adding the said amount in the petitioner's bill for consumption of electricity duties. The aforesaid added amount was in connection with M/s J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited. The electricity company wanted to recover the said amount from the petitioner on the ground that the said J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited and the present petitioner Company belongs to the same group i.e. J.K. Sin ania Group. The petitioner has challenged the said action of the respondent company in serving the aforesaid bill to the petitioner company on the ground that when the petitioner company is paying all regular bills, the outstanding amount towards electricity charges in connection with J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited cannot be charged from the petitioner and no liability can be fastened on the petitioner company for making such payment. This Court while admitting the petition has restored the electricity connection in favour of the petitioner which was disconnected on the ground of non-payment of said amount. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. L.R. Mehta with Mr. Ramit Mehta vehemently argued that the petitioner company is a legal entity as it is incorporated under the Companies Act. It is submitted by him that for outstanding amount of another concern, the petitioner company cannot be fastened with liability of making payment of such demand which may be outstanding from other company. Learned Counsel Mr. L.R. Mehta with Mr. Ramit Mehta vehemently argued that the petitioner company is a legal entity as it is incorporated under the Companies Act. It is submitted by him that for outstanding amount of another concern, the petitioner company cannot be fastened with liability of making payment of such demand which may be outstanding from other company. It is submitted that the demand in question is absolutely unjust and the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount towards electricity charges or any other charges which may be found outstanding from other company. It is further submitted that it may be held that the company has no right to recover any dues from the petitioner specially when such dues cannot be said to be outstanding from the petitioner-company. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Bhansali submitted that it is no doubt true that the amount which is included in the petitioner's bill is the outstanding amount of M/s J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited but since said J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited also belongs to the same group of industries, a demand was raised from the petitioner in connection with the outstanding amount of M/s J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited. Mr. Bhansali also submitted that as per circular of the electricity company dated 30.4.1997. in case the consumer does not deposit the outstanding dues of R.S.E.B. their connections are disconnected in accordance with law. It is submitted that said circular further provides that if the same consumer takes electricity connection in another premises without clearing the outstanding dues of the earlier connections and enjoys the facility of connection, the person who is having another connection is required to make payment of such dues. He submitted that since petitioner J.K. Industries Ltd. and J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited both belong to the same group, the amount has been added in the bills of petitioner company. 5. In this connection, it is important to note that both the companies are registered under the Companies Act and the manufacturing activities of both the companies are at different places. Both the companies are situated in different premises and consumer account of both the companies is also different. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that petitioner and J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. both are same consumers. Both the companies are situated in different premises and consumer account of both the companies is also different. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that petitioner and J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. both are same consumers. It is not a case where any individual person is running two different units and in such eventuality perhaps it may be possible to realise its dues from another individual concern. So far petitioner company is concerned, it is a different legal entity and, therefore, liability of another company cannot be fastened on the petitioner. 6. Apart from that before disconnecting the connection of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner company. It is interesting to note that even it is not the case of respondent company that directors of both the companies are common. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in my view it is not open for the respondent company to recover amount of another company from the petitioner company as the remedy available to the respondent electricity company is to take appropriate steps against the defaulting company i.e. M/s J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and to ask payment from such company. However, the respondent company is not justified In asking the present petitioner to deposit the amount when even the consumer number of the petitioner is different and manufacturing activity is also not similar and premises are located in different places and even the Directors of both the companies are different. Considering the fact that petitioner company is a legal entity in law it would not be open for the electricity company to recover the amount of another company from the petitioner. 8. Under these circumstances, the demand made by the electricity company from the petitioner is absolutely unsustainable especially when there is no outstanding amount against the petitioner company. It is not open for the Electricity company to recover some other company's dues from the petitioner company as ultimately both these companies are having different legal entity in law and both cannot be said to be one and same consumer. It is an admitted fact that no amount is due from the petitioner company. Thus, the demand raised by the respondent company from the petitioner company is not at all justified. 9. Under these circumstances, the demand of electricity charges by the electricity company from the petitioner is not justified at all. It is an admitted fact that no amount is due from the petitioner company. Thus, the demand raised by the respondent company from the petitioner company is not at all justified. 9. Under these circumstances, the demand of electricity charges by the electricity company from the petitioner is not justified at all. The petitioner as well as M/s. J.K. Udaippur Udyog Ltd. cannot be said to be one and the same consumer. Even the Board of Directors are not common and both the companies are operating at different places altogether having different consumer numbers. As such, the action of the respondent company in trying to recover the dues of M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. from the petitioner company is not sustainable. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed. The demand raised from the petitioner-company in connection with the dues of M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. is hereby quashed and set aside by holding that the Electricity Company has no right to make such demand of another entity from the petitioner-company. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******