JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. Admit. Mr.Krunal Shah, for respondent no.1 and Mr. Dattani for respondent no.2 waive notice of admission. 2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, appeal is finally heard. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SCA No.9792/13, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant Electricity Company to supply electricity on fulfilment of the other conditions of requisite charges, etc., and it has been further observed that if respondent no.3 therein, who is respondent no.2 herein, applies in future, his application shall also be considered in accordance with law. 4. The short facts of the case appears to be that as per the appellants, there is agricultural land located at Botad bearing Survey No.473. The original petitioner-respondent no.1 herein was holding the agricultural land with his brother. As per the revenue record, the land is in the joint name of all the legal heirs of deceased Valjibhai. However, as per the original petitioner, there was family settlement and it was decided that a particular portion of the agricultural land will be shared by him and the another portion is shared by his brother. The original petitioner applied for electricity connection, but his brother, respondent no.2 herein, objected. As per the original petitioner, there was no cordial relation. When he applied for electricity connection on 13.02.2004 and paid the necessary fees, in spite of the fact that his sister had consented for the electricity connection, since his brother had objected and did not give consent letter, his application for supply of electricity by the electricity company was not considered. Under the circumstances, the original petitioner preferred petition before this Court for appropriate writ to grant electricity connection in the field of the original petitioner. The learned Single Judge passed the order observing inter alia that the objections of the respondent no.3 respondent no.2 herein, should not come in the way of the original petitioner in fulfilment of the condition, but further observed that if respondent no.2 herein-respondent no.3 therein applies for another connection, his case also shall be considered. It is under these circumstances, the appellant electricity company has preferred the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Premal Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Krunal Shah and Mr. It is under these circumstances, the appellant electricity company has preferred the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Premal Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Krunal Shah and Mr. Dattani for respondents no.1 and 2 respectively. 6. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants mainly pressed in service Regulation No.4.1.17 framed by Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and submitted that if the consumer is opting for electricity supply, there has to be separate legal entity and necessary documents are to be produced. In his submission, the land is in the joint name of original petitioner and his brother and therefore, unless his brother gives no objection certificate, the electricity company has rightly declined to consider the application. In his submission, the direction of the learned Single Judge would run counter to the regulation no.4.1.17. He also submitted that the rationale behind regulation is that in future if the electricity bill is not paid, the question of recovery may arise and such can be from the property, but if one of the co-owner has objected, it will not be possible for the electricity company to recover the amount. He therefore submitted that this Court may consider in the present appeal. 7. Whereas, Mr.Shah and Mr. Dattani, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively, submitted that out of the total agricultural land of the above referred survey number, one portion of it is cultivated by the original petitioner and one portion of it is cultivated by respondent no.2 herein. The area for cultivation are separate and distinct. There is one well which is to be utilised for the purpose of irrigation for their respective agricultural land. It was submitted that both the brothers are not having cordial relation and one is not ready to take up the responsibility of another including that of payment of electricity bill. It was submitted by the learned counsel that if separate connection is given to both the brothers for irrigation of their respective areas, which is under cultivation with them, out of one well, they have no objection for such purpose. It was submitted that so far as sisters are concerned, they have given no objection and therefore that aspect may not arise. 8. As such, regulation no.4.1.17, which has been pressed in service by the learned counsel for the appellants reads as under: "4.1.17. It was submitted that so far as sisters are concerned, they have given no objection and therefore that aspect may not arise. 8. As such, regulation no.4.1.17, which has been pressed in service by the learned counsel for the appellants reads as under: "4.1.17. The distribution license will not provide more than one connection/meter for one premise. The consumer opting for second meter will have to produce separate legal entity such as documents of separate income tax number/sales tax number, ration card and rent or lease agreement." 9. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Patel Prakashbhai Bhagwandas v. Central Gujarat Electricity company reported in 2008(4) GLR 3194 , wherein one of us (Jayant Patel, J.) sitting as single Judge had an occasion to interpret the very supply code/regulation no. 4.1.17. In the said case, the question arose was for another connection for tube-well in agricultural land wherein one electricity connection was already granted. This Court in the said decision, considered the supply code no.4.1.17, and observed at paras 7 and 8 as under: 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Electricity Supply Code No.4.1.17 for supporting the contention that if one connection is already in existence, second connection cannot be granted. Electricity Supply Code No.4.1.17, which is pressed in service by the learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Company reads as under: "4.1.17. The distribution license will not provide more than one connection/meter for one premise. The consumer opting for second meter will have to produce separate legal entity such as documents of separate income tax number/sales tax number, ration card and rent or lease agreement." 8. If the aforesaid Supply Code is read as it is, it can hardly be said that there is any absolute bar for second meter which would include a separate connection, also. What required is that a separate legal entity or the documents in support thereof is required to be produced. The Code suggests separate legal entity in the context of income tax number or sales tax number or ration card or rent or lease agreement. Such documents or proof showing the separate legal entity as mentioned in the Code are only some of the examples and they are not exhaustive in their list. The Code suggests separate legal entity in the context of income tax number or sales tax number or ration card or rent or lease agreement. Such documents or proof showing the separate legal entity as mentioned in the Code are only some of the examples and they are not exhaustive in their list. The factum showing permissibility to produce the document for separate legal entity itself shows that the nature of documents mentioned are by way of inclusive language and not by way of exhaustive language. The reason being that there can be more than one contingency as mentioned in the aforesaid supply code to show separate legal entity or a separate status of the person concerned. Further, since the language used in the Supply Code for separate legal entity in the context of income tax, sales tax, ration card, rent or lease agreement, shows that it is for a separate legal status, the documents are to be produced and for showing a separate and distinct use for such separate meter or connection. If a person is having one tube well and if in the same agricultural land, another tube well is dug, a separate and distinct use of the another tube well can be identified. It may be that the electricity company could verify as to whether separate tube well is dug by the petitioner or not. Further, the tube well has manifold purpose including the irrigation of the land for the land owned by the person where the tube well is located and it could also be permitted to be used for irrigation of the additional adjoining land, may be on payment of charge or otherwise. Therefore, on reading of the aforesaid clause of the Electricity Code, it appears that if a separate and distinct use for a specific purpose is identified, no bar operates for grant of connection, unless the electricity company finds that it may not be possible for separately preparing the bill for the electricity supply. If in one premises or land there are more than one owner or one owner is desirous to have more than one separate and distinct activity which requires separate assessment under the Income Tax Act or Sales Tax or ration card etc. If in one premises or land there are more than one owner or one owner is desirous to have more than one separate and distinct activity which requires separate assessment under the Income Tax Act or Sales Tax or ration card etc. separate connection can not be said as impermissible, e.g. in one large portion of land/premises different co-owner are desirous to have different and separate residential or commercial activities or in one large portion or premises one owner is desirous to make use for residential, commercial or industrial activity separately or that he desirous to have more than one residential or commercial or industrial activities. If in all such circumstances, separate connection is read as impressible, it would result into large number of legal complication for Income Tax, Sales Tax, excised, local tax etc. to the very person for such various district and separate use. Therefore, the word legal entity is to be understood in the context to a particular and distinct separate independent use. If such meaning is not given, the said clause of Supply Code may be rendered unconstitutional putting absolute bar to the rights guaranteed to citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. As in the present case, the petitioner has applied for a separate connection for a distinct use for a different tube well, the same is not prohibited as per the Supply Code. Hence, the interpretation as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent, under these circumstances, is not correct for contending that a separate connection cannot be granted to the petitioner even if separate and distinct tube well having different status altogether is dug by the petitioner in the very agricultural land." 10. The aforesaid shows that the said regulation of the supply code has been interpreted and this Court has found that the list of examples given of income tax number, sales tax number or ration card, etc., are not exhaustive, but they are inclusive. It has been observed that legal entity is to be understood in the context to a particular and distinct separate independent use and if such a meaning is not given, the said clause of Supply Code may be rendered unconstitutional putting absolute bar to the rights guaranteed to citizen under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. It has been observed that legal entity is to be understood in the context to a particular and distinct separate independent use and if such a meaning is not given, the said clause of Supply Code may be rendered unconstitutional putting absolute bar to the rights guaranteed to citizen under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. We find that applying the same interpretation, what is required for the electricity company is to consider the aspects of legal entity in context to a particular distinct and independent use, may be by one person or may be by more than one person. 11. If the facts of the present case are considered, it has come on record that there is separate and distinct use of the agricultural land of the respective portion by original petitioner as well as by his brother. Therefore, if the original petitioner is in a position to produce the document showing that a particular area of the agricultural land is in his possession and he is cultivating the same, in our view, there should not be any impediment on the part of the appellant electricity company to supply electricity to the original petitioner. Same should be the situation for respondent no.2 in the event he is desirous to get the electricity connection for cultivation of the land which is in his possession. The learned counsel appearing for both the respondents no.1 and 2 have declared before the Court that they are ready to produce the sketch showing separate area of the agricultural land in possession of the respective respondents and the electricity connection may be granted for irrigation purpose of the respective agricultural land, which has been inherited by them from their father. In our view, once the distinct and separate use is identified and the details are given, the requirement of supply code no. 4.1.17 shall stand satisfied. There is no other impediment in law shown to us by the appellant Electricity Company. 12. It was submitted that so far as original petitioner is concerned, he has already made the application but respondent no.2 herein is yet to make application. 13. 4.1.17 shall stand satisfied. There is no other impediment in law shown to us by the appellant Electricity Company. 12. It was submitted that so far as original petitioner is concerned, he has already made the application but respondent no.2 herein is yet to make application. 13. In our view, the treatment to both the application can be on the same line if made by respondent no.2, but the only difference may be that the time or the serial order in the application may be different as per the connection allotted as per the prevailing policy from time to time for additional connection. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the effect that if respondent no.1 produces the sketch showing the particular of the agricultural land in his possession, duly signed by him, and Mr.Dattani, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also declared that his client, respondent no.2 has also agreed to sign the said sketch and hence the said sketch shall be duly signed by respondent no.2. Upon the production of the said sketch and on payment of necessary fees as per the rules and regulations, the application of the original petitioner shall be treated as complete and he will be supplied electricity as and when his turn comes for allotment of agricultural connection. 14. It is further observed that if respondent no.2 is desirous to get his separate connection, he will be required to fulfil the same formality as observed by this Court in the present order for respondent no.1, i.e., of production of the sketch duly signed and payment of necessary fees as per the rules and regulations and his application shall also be considered for supply of electricity as per the policy for providing agricultural connection. 15. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Appeal is Disposed of Accordingly.