ORDER 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had opted for a dedicated feeder as defined in clause 5.3 of the M.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2004 (hereinafter called as “Code”). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire cost for the purpose of installation of the feeder was paid by the petitioner and the respondents were bound to provide electricity through that feeder only to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the very purpose of providing a dedicated feeder is to ensure direct supply from sub-station to the industry without any hindrance/interruption. He submits that if other persons were given connection from the said feeder, it no more remains a dedicated feeder and it will defeat the very purpose for which a dedicated feeder is opted by the petitioner. Learned counsel by placing reliance on clause 11 of the agreement for high tension supply, submits that the respondents are bound to provide uninterrupted electricity supply to the petitioner and the same is possible only when a dedicated feeder solely dedicated for the petitioner continues and if from the said feeder other lines are given, it neither remains a dedicated feeder nor it can fulfill the requirement of uninterrupted service to the petitioner. 2. Per contra, Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents/Company, submits that the capacity of transformer as well as feeder in question is 11400 KVA whereas the petitioner is consuming electricity only to the extent of 2000 KVA. Mr. Goyal submits that the agreement filed by the respondents shows that the agreement was for 3000 KAV. Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the very purpose of providing dedicated feeder is to ensure providing of electricity to a particular consumer from a particular feeder. In other words, Shri Jain submits that the dedicated feeder means that the electricity would be provided from that particular feeder and no other feeder would be used for the said purpose. He submits that clause 5.3 nowhere prescribes that the dedicated feeder means a feeder confined to a singular consumer. In other words, Shri Jain submits that the dedicated feeder does not mean that it should be solely confined or dedicated to a singular consumer. The only purpose is to ensure electricity supply to its optimum through a particular feeder which is earmarked as a dedicated feeder to a consumer. In other words, Shri Jain submits that the dedicated feeder does not mean that it should be solely confined or dedicated to a singular consumer. The only purpose is to ensure electricity supply to its optimum through a particular feeder which is earmarked as a dedicated feeder to a consumer. He also relied on clause 4.9 of the Code to submit that petitioner has no case. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The singular question needs to be answered is whether a dedicated feeder means a feeder from which the supply can be given only to a particular consumer ? It is apt to quote clause 5.3 of the Code which reads as under :- “5.3 Consumers desirous of getting power supply from dedicated feeders may request for such facility to the licensee. The dedicated feeder shall be extended from the Power Substation to the consumer’s point of supply. In such cases the consumers shall be liable to pay the cost of Bay and all protection Switchgears and its accessories provided at the power substation for this feeder in addition to the cost of the feeder. On receipt of such request, the licensee will check the feasibility based on merit of providing a dedicated feeder to the consumer’s premises. If found feasible, the consumer will be provided with a dedicated feeder and the consumer will be liable to pay additional charges as indicated in the Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges.” 4. A bare perusal of the clause 5.3 of the Code shows that it nowhere confines the feeder to a singular consumer. On the contrary, the clause 5.3 begins with a plural word which is “consumers”. Thus, the intention of the code making authorities is not to confine the dedicated feeder to a singular consumer but it was left open to provide the dedicated feeder to the consumers. Thus, I am unable to hold that the intention of the code making authority is to confine the dedicated feeder to a singular consumer. Consequently, I find no substance in the argument that the dedicated feeder should be confined to a singular consumer/petitioner. So far as the right to get continuous/ uninterrupted electricity supply from clause 11 of the agreement is concerned, if this is violated, it is always open for the petitioner to invoke the arbitrary clause 36 of the said agreement. Consequently, I find no substance in the argument that the dedicated feeder should be confined to a singular consumer/petitioner. So far as the right to get continuous/ uninterrupted electricity supply from clause 11 of the agreement is concerned, if this is violated, it is always open for the petitioner to invoke the arbitrary clause 36 of the said agreement. In the light of the aforesaid analysis, I find no substance in the petition and I am unable to hold that the dedicated feeder is solely dedicated to the singular consumer/petitioner. Even otherwise, this cannot be the intention of the code making authority because one feeder having a larger capacity cannot be wasted for a consumer whose requirement is much less than the capacity of the feeder. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out by the petitioner. Petition is bereft of any merit and substance and is hereby dismissed.