JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Petitioners have prayed for a writ or direction to set aside the decision reflected in communication dated 10th March, 2015 of the respondent. It is further prayed to direct the respondent to supply electricity to the petitioner in the premises at plot No. 248/6, Phase-II at GIDC, Vadhwan, District Surendranagar. 2. Initially the petition was filed by the first petitioner Shiv Optical Industries through its Proprietor one Ravirajsinh Bharatsinh Dodiya. Thereafter by filing Civil Application No. 13347 of, petitioner No. 2 Virajsinh Bharatsinh Dodiya was allowed to become co-petitioner. The premises at which the electricity connection was prayed for in the petition was owned by petitioner No. 2, whereas petitioner No. 1 was a lessee of the premises. Petitioner No. 1-lessee had no objection if new electricity connection is granted as prayed for; with a view to avoid technical impediment, petitioner No. 2 got himself impleaded. 3. The relevant facts emerging from record may be outlined. The Plot No. 248 at Vadhwan, GIDC Estate was originally owned by one Alka Ceramics. One Sabbir Tayab Ali purchased the said plot by deed 06th February, 1998. The deed referred to plot Nos. 248/5, 248/6 and 248/7. Said Sabbir was the owner of the Raj Ice Factory who applied for electricity connection in the said plot. According to the respondent-Electricity Company, application was made for plot No. 248. 3.1. It appears that when said Tayab Ali was holding electricity connection in his name, a theft of power had been detected, pursuant to which a demand notice was issued to him for the electricity theft charges to the tune of Rs. 16,68,686/-. The supply was permanently disconnected. The dues remained unpaid. It appears further that the respondent company instituted civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 2009 against the partners of said Ice Factory, that is, said Sabbir Husain Tayab Ali and one Raisangbhai M. Dodiya who was using the premises, being the defendants. 3.2. The aforesaid civil suit was instituted on 23rd November, 2009 and came to be decreed by judgment dated 26th November, 2010 whereby the defendants were held liable jointly and severally to pay the electricity theft amount of Rs. 14,33,019/- with 18% interest from 28th May, 2007 being the date of checking till realization. 3.2. The aforesaid civil suit was instituted on 23rd November, 2009 and came to be decreed by judgment dated 26th November, 2010 whereby the defendants were held liable jointly and severally to pay the electricity theft amount of Rs. 14,33,019/- with 18% interest from 28th May, 2007 being the date of checking till realization. First Appeal No. 1056 of 2013 against the said judgment and decree has been admitted and is pending before this Court. In the Civil Application No. 4574 of 2013 filed in the said first appeal while granting interim relief in terms of paragraph 10B in favour of the appellant, it is clarified by this Court that said interim relief would operate against opponent No. 1-Paschim Gujarat Vij Company only and it would be open for the opponent No. 1 to execute the decree against respondent No. 2. 3.3. It appears that plot No. 248 in question appears to have been sub divided. Plot No. 248/6 was purchased by petitioner No. 1 from M/s. Raj Ice Cold Storage through its partners by registered deed of assignment dated 28th September, 2012. It further appears that on 28th October, 2014, a tenancy agreement was executed between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2. It was thereafter that a request was made by the petitioner to the respondent Electricity Company for granting electricity connection at the plot No. 248/6. 3.4. The aforesaid request was denied by the respondents on the ground stating previously, at this premises, electricity connection in the name of Raj Ice Factory bearing consumer No. 72601/20001/4, in respect of which a bill for electricity theft charges to the tune of Rs. 16,68,686.69ps has remained unpaid, for recover of which civil suit was filed before Civil Court at Surendranagar which was decreed in favour of the company but the First Appeal there against is pending before the High Court. On that ground, it was stated in the impugned communication that in view of Regulation 4.1.11, electricity connection cannot be granted at the said place. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Gandhi with learned advocate Mr. A.B. Gatesaniya for the petitioners. 5. From the basic facts noted hereinabove, it is the factual position obtained that the present petitioner No. 2-Virajsinh Dodiya purchased plot No. 248/6, being part of Plot No. 248, GIDC, Wadhwan, by registered deed dated 28th September, 2012 from above-named Sabbirhusain Taiyabali. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Gandhi with learned advocate Mr. A.B. Gatesaniya for the petitioners. 5. From the basic facts noted hereinabove, it is the factual position obtained that the present petitioner No. 2-Virajsinh Dodiya purchased plot No. 248/6, being part of Plot No. 248, GIDC, Wadhwan, by registered deed dated 28th September, 2012 from above-named Sabbirhusain Taiyabali. After the said purchase on 28th September, 2012, a supplementary agreement was executed which was a tripartite agreement between the GIDC, owner and the lessee-the petitioner No. 1 herein. A tenancy agreement was executed on 28th October, 2014 with the petitioner No. 1. It is thereafter that the petitioners made request to the electricity company praying for electricity connection at plot No. 248/6. There is no gain saying that petitioner No. 2 is a lawful owner of the plot pursuant to the aforesaid registered deed. 5.1. Refusal to provide electricity to petitioners at the said plot No. 248/6 is on the ground of Regulation No. 4.1.11 which reads as under. "An application for new connection, reconnection, addition or reduction of load, change of name or shifting of service line for any premises need not be entertained unless any dues relating to that premises or any dues of the applicant to the Distribution Licensee in respect of any other service connection held in his name anywhere in the jurisdiction of the Distribution Licensee have been cleared. Provided that in case the connection is released after recovery of earlier dues from the new applicant and in case the licensee, after availing appropriate legal remedies, get the full or part of the dues from the previous consumer/owner or occupier of that premise, the amount shall be refunded to the new consumer/owner or occupier from whom the dues have been recovered after adjusting the expenses to recover such dues." 5.2. The aforesaid Regulation is pressed into service by learned advocate for the respondent company to submit that since in respect of the premises bearing plot No. 248, dues of erstwhile owner/occupier are unpaid, new connection cannot be granted to the petitioners. It cannot be overlooked that subsequently the plot No. 248 as a whole which was one plot, came to be divided and part of it, that is plot No. 248/6, came to the ownership of the present petitioner No. 2. It cannot be overlooked that subsequently the plot No. 248 as a whole which was one plot, came to be divided and part of it, that is plot No. 248/6, came to the ownership of the present petitioner No. 2. It is true that purchase and transfer is after filing of the civil suit by the respondent company for recovery of the bill amount against the predecessor consumer-occupant. Though the transfer and bifurcation of plot No. 248/6 is subsequent to the filing of the suit, the same is prior to the interim order by this Court in the aforesaid Civil Application No. 4574 of 2013, wherein the respondent company is allowed to execute decree against the actual defaulter-the erstwhile occupant at the premises. It is also the case of the petitioners that previous connection was at the part of the premises which is referable to plot No. 248/7 and not 248/6, be as it may. The same could be taken as a valid indicia in law for lawful ownership and occupation of the petitioners. 6. In the aforesaid view, further when Regulation No. 4.1.11 in its proviso says that if the electricity company is able to recover the dues from the previous consumer/owner/occupier of the premises, such amount shall be refunded to the new consumer and when in the appeal before this Court by the previous owner, the electricity company has been given liberty to execute the decree against the actual defaulter/consumer and the said decree is under execution, the case of the petitioners could be considered in that light. Furthermore, from the facts noted above, by virtue of the transfer of plot No. 248/6 under registered deed, it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioners satisfy the requirement of being lawful owners and occupants of the premises, that is plot No. 248/6, to be entitled to be considered for grant of electricity connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Electricity is rightly perceived as an essential commodity in day-to-day life of all activities-domestic, commercial or industrial. 6.1. In the circumstances, this petition deserves to be allowed. At the same time by putting the petitioners to certain conditions for enjoyment of electricity supply. 7. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, interest of justice would be served if this petition is disposed of by giving directions. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by issuing following directions. 6.1. In the circumstances, this petition deserves to be allowed. At the same time by putting the petitioners to certain conditions for enjoyment of electricity supply. 7. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, interest of justice would be served if this petition is disposed of by giving directions. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by issuing following directions. (i) The respondent-electricity company shall supply the electricity to the petitioner at the premises at Plot No. 248/6, Phase-II, G.I.D.C., Wadhwan, District Surendranagar which shall be on conditions that (a) petitioner pays 60% of the total amount of Rs. 16,68,686.69 Ps. demanded by the respondent company, and (b) furnishes Bank Guarantee for the rest of the 40% amount; (ii) Electricity connection shall be granted to the petitioner immediately on compliance of the aforesaid conditions by the petitioner. This arrangement is subject to outcome of First Appeal No. 1056 of 2013 pending before this Court; (iii) If the electricity company executes decree and in the process of execution recovers the amount of bill of electricity theft charges, it shall reimburse the same to the petitioner as per Regulation No. 4.1.11. Such amount either wholly or in installment, as may be recovered in course of execution of decree, shall be paid back to the petitioner at such stage of recovery within 15 days of the receipt of the amount by the company. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.