JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the request of learned advocates for the parties, the petition was taken for final consideration. 1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1, whereas learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. By filling the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent No. 2 Electricity company to reconnect electric supply of the petitioner at his consumer No. 35838/00/135/6. 3. The aforesaid electricity connection at petitioner's place remained out of use since sometime, apparently on account of a civil dispute relating to the petitioner and private respondents herein, with respect to use of the land and rights asserted in that regard by the parties. The private respondents have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 56 of 2003 against the present petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction before the court of Civil Judge, (J.D.), Vanthal. In that suit, the Civil Court has by passing interim order dated 29th March, 2004 below Exh. 5 & Exh. 61, restrained the defendant-petitioner herein from obstructing the supply of water from the field of defendant bearing Survey No. 9/1 and 9/3 to the plaintiff's field, Survey No. 36. This water is flown to the plaintiff's field through submersible pump, run through the aforesaid electricity connection at the petitioner's field. It is stated by the petitioner that in view of said interim order, he is obliged to restart the electricity connection and the supply, so as to ensure and not to obstruct the water going to plaintiff's field for his use. 3.1 It further appears that the petitioner faced proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A, CPC, pursuant to the aforesaid interim injunction, in which he was held to have committed the breach and was ordered to be sent to prison. That order was confirmed as petitioner's Civil Misc. Appeal No. 72 of 2011 was also dismissed. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 18192 of 2010 before this court to challenge the order passed in the aforesaid Misc. Appeal. The petitioner filed an undertaking in that proceedings to the effect that the petitioner shall comply with the order of injunction dated 29th March, 2014. The said petition is pending. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 18192 of 2010 before this court to challenge the order passed in the aforesaid Misc. Appeal. The petitioner filed an undertaking in that proceedings to the effect that the petitioner shall comply with the order of injunction dated 29th March, 2014. The said petition is pending. 3.2 The trouble for the petitioner started thereafter. He made an application dated 29th June, 2015 to the respondent Electricity Company requesting to re-connect the electricity supply stating that the same was not in orderly condition and needed repair to re-start the supply. It was further stated by the petitioner in his letter dated 2nd July, 2015 that the repair and re-supply was needed urgently, as there were orders of the court injuncting the petitioner for supply of water through his filed. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the above, the Electricity company sat tight not to pay heed to the petitioner's legitimate request. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present petition. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's only request was to restart the supply of electricity at his existing consumer number so that he can obey the injunction by causing the flaw of water through the pump run and operated through electricity supply at his existing consumer installation. It was stated that the petitioner has already paid necessary fees of 940/- for the same. Learned Advocate further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to fulfill necessary requirements and abide by the condition(s) of restoration of supply of electricity. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the personnel of the company had come to the place/small room at his field to re-connect, but did not complete the task. 4.1 Respondent No. 1 company filed its affidavit-in-reply and stated as under, "On 29.06.2014 petitioner has paid Rs. 940/- for replacement of service line. Pursuant to that on 14.07.2015 the electrical assistant, Shahpur subdivision approached the premises of the petitioner for replacement of service line but at the site it was found that cable was disconnected from load. 4.1 Respondent No. 1 company filed its affidavit-in-reply and stated as under, "On 29.06.2014 petitioner has paid Rs. 940/- for replacement of service line. Pursuant to that on 14.07.2015 the electrical assistant, Shahpur subdivision approached the premises of the petitioner for replacement of service line but at the site it was found that cable was disconnected from load. The electrical assistant started working to restore the power supply on load side but at that time one Shri Bharatbhai Jiladia has taken objection stating that the electrical room where connections is to be done is situated on his land and did not permit the electrical assistant to reconnect the cable to restore the power supply." 4.1.1 It is further stated, "On 29.09.2015 the deputy engineer visited the site. At that time also Shri Bharatbhai Jiladiya did not cooperate. Not only that no Fuse, Main Switch or any protective devices are installed in the electrical room at the site. The office of the respondent Company has also issued one communication dated 23.11.2015 informing the petitioner to provide Authentic documents to prove his Land ownership." 4.2 Respondent No. 1 company stated that it did not take any objection to restore the supply to the petitioner, but according to it, a third party one Bharatbhai Jiladiya objected, not permitting to carry out the necessary work claiming ownership of the room where the connection of the petitioner exists but not commissioned. It was also stated that at the site in the electric room, the fuse, main switch or other protective device were not installed. 4.3 Learned advocate for the electricity company harped that since there was an objection from third party claiming to be the owner of the room, it was not possible to restart the electricity to the petitioner. This stand of the company was strongly refuted by the petitioner stating that the civil court had already found that the connection exists at the field of the petitioner and a room is located near the well. He further reiterated that petitioner would fully co-operate to provide necessary facilities at the field, where the connection already exists, so that the electricity can be effectively restored by respondent No. 1 company. 5. He further reiterated that petitioner would fully co-operate to provide necessary facilities at the field, where the connection already exists, so that the electricity can be effectively restored by respondent No. 1 company. 5. The only and the main ground on which the respondent-electricity company has refused the restoration of supply of electricity to the petitioner at his existing consumer number/connection, is that some third party raised objection and claimed that he was the owner of the room in which connection was located. From the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the company, it was explicitly stated that the personnel of the company had gone to the place, but could not commission the supply as at the said place, fuse, the main switch and other electric apparatus were not available. It is stated that the Engineer had gone for the second time also, but for want of the said apparatus and protective devices and the third party not cooperating, the connection could not be installed and the supply could not restart. The stand on one hand that some third party objected due to which the company's personnel could not reconnect the supply, and the reason on the other hand that the supply could not be started for want of apparatus and devices, stands only to contradict one another. 5.1 It is difficult to accept that mere objection from the third party can be a valid ground for the electricity company to refuse the connection, particularly when the so-called claim of ownership of the place by the third party is not shown to be supported by any document or material supplied or received by such party; nor the electricity company asked the said third party to fortify his objection and claim of ownership. Respondent No. 1 company was not justified in refusing to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner, when admittedly the connection existed in the name of the petitioner and on that connection, petitioner was entitled to get the restarting of the electricity supply. The petitioner has stated that he is ready to provide necessary facilities and comply with the procedural requirements for which admittedly the petitioner has paid the necessary charges. The petitioner has stated that he is ready to provide necessary facilities and comply with the procedural requirements for which admittedly the petitioner has paid the necessary charges. The petitioner is ready to produce the proof in the nature of copy/extract of relevant record to show in the minimum the occupation of the place, in addition that it is beyond the pale of dispute that the ownership of agricultural land bearing Nos. 9/1 and 9/3 is of the petitioner. 5.2 The dispute sought to be created about the claim of ownership in the place of electricity connection, need not detain the controversy any more. It is not in dispute that Survey Nos. 9/1 and 9/3 are the lands belonging to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that there was a connection already granted at the said place in the name of the petitioner. Nor it is a disputed aspect that it is the same connection which is to be revived and the supply of electricity is to be restored. The petitioner wants to re-engine the submersible pump by use of the electricity from his connection, so as to convey the water from the well in his field to the field of plaintiff of the suit. These factual aspects are set to rest by the findings recorded by the Civil Court in order dated 29th March, 2004 below Exh. 5 and Exh. 61. In paragraph No. 7 of the aforesaid order, which is produced on record of the petition, learned Civil Judge has categorically found that in that field, Survey Nos. 9/1 and 9/3, there exists a well and from the said well, water flows to Survey No. 36 of the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge found that the factum of electricity connection on the said well was on record and further that the said connection is of present petitioner that is Babulal Nanjibhai Parmar. The findings recorded by the Civil Judge in the order below Exh. 5 came to be further examined and confirmed by the higher court in appeal. 5.3 The above prima facie findings are adequate mandate to the respondent electricity company not to refuse the restoration of electricity to the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Civil Judge in the order below Exh. 5 came to be further examined and confirmed by the higher court in appeal. 5.3 The above prima facie findings are adequate mandate to the respondent electricity company not to refuse the restoration of electricity to the petitioner. These findings are binding to the parties, in particular to electricity company when it comes to granting of electricity connection as well as for not paying heed to the so called objection of the said third party from whom nothing in support of his objection has been forthcoming. 6. Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 statutorily enjoins the electricity company to give powers to a person who is either occupier or owner of the premises/place whereat such connection is asked for. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner has both the above capacities. He is the occupier of the agricultural field in question as well as the owner of the said land at which his electricity connection as consumer was already granted, which connection exists at present and the electricity supply is requested to be restored from that connection only. Once the petitioner satisfies his capacity and status to be granted electricity connection, his right readily accrues as an established right when he seeks restart and restoration of the electricity by complying the condition of payment of charges etc. The provision of Section 43 entitles a person to have the electricity supply, and casts a corresponding duty on the electricity company to grant such connection/supply. 6.1 In Chandu Khamaru vs. Nayan Malik and Ors. [ (2011) 12 SCC 314 ], the Supreme Court held that in view of sub-section (1) of Section 42, every distribution licencee has a duty to develop and maintain distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions of the Act and further that sub-section (1) of Section 43 casts a statutory duty on the distribution licencee to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises located in the area of supply of electricity of such licencee, if such person applies for the same. In other words, there is a corresponding obligation on part of the Electricity company to supply to the owner or occupier of the premises who want to obtain such electricity. In another decision in Meena Chaudhary @ Dr. In other words, there is a corresponding obligation on part of the Electricity company to supply to the owner or occupier of the premises who want to obtain such electricity. In another decision in Meena Chaudhary @ Dr. Meena P.N. Singh vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. [2013 (4) CLJ 111 S.C.], decision in Chandu Khamaru (supra) was relied on and it was observed thus, "6. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is very clear that it is the duty of every licencee to give supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises within its area. [See Chandu Khamaru vs. Nayan Malik and others, (2011) 12 SCC 314 ]. In this case, we find that instead of ensuring that electricity is supplied to the occupant of the premises in question in accordance with the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent No. 1 is taking resort to a defence to ensure that electricity is not supplied in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The facts are very clear that there was a meter installed and the supply of electricity was to a registered consumer." 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, refusal to the petitioner for restart/restoration of electricity supply at his existing consumer connection located at his field, could not be justified on any count. A duty in law arise for the respondent No. 1 electricity company to provide the electricity and restore the supply. Therefore, this petition is allowed by issuing the following directions. (i) Respondent No. 1 electricity company shall immediately and not later than ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, ensure that electricity supply is restored to the petitioner consumer at his existing electricity connection No. 35838/00/135/6 at the land in question. (ii) The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the respondent company and alongwith it, furnish proof about his occupation on the land/premise in question in form of extract from the Revenue record. (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate in reviving the electricity installation and restarting the supply of electricity. The restoration of supply shall be at the same place where the electricity connection presently exists. If any new device or apparatus are to be installed, the petitioner shall bear the necessary charges. (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate in reviving the electricity installation and restarting the supply of electricity. The restoration of supply shall be at the same place where the electricity connection presently exists. If any new device or apparatus are to be installed, the petitioner shall bear the necessary charges. (iv) The electricity supply shall be restored after the necessary procedural formalities are completed within the aforesaid time of ten days. (v) This arrangement is subject to the orders which may be passed by the Civil Court finally determining the rights of the parties. Rule is made absolute to the said extent. Direct service is permitted.