JUDGMENT : 1. These two petitions are filed by the Electric Company challenging the order of the Chief Electrical Inspector and Appellate Authority, Gandhinagar in Appeal by which the bill issued by the petitioner company was set aside. In Special Civil Application No. 6553 of 2012, the order dated 06.02.2012 in Appeal No.MNV/Appeal/2126 of 2012 against bill of Rs.52,06,835/- is under challenge and in Special Civil Application No.11005 of 2012 the order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the same authority in Appeal No.MVN/TPS/235 of 2013 against the bill of Rs.31,89,311/- is under challenge. Both the petitions are based on similar facts and between the same parties however, the challenge is with regards to the bills issued for different period and therefore, the facts are extracted from Special Civil Application No.6553 of 2012. 2. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya appearing for the petitioner submitted that the checking was carried out by the team of the petitioner on 26.08.2011 in the premises of respondent No.1 in the presence of representative of the respondent No.1. It was found that though the respondent No.1 had obtained connection for Part No.1, power supply to the extent of 340 H.P. was connected from the Part No.1 to Part No.2 with the help of panel/stabiliser and 225 mm black colour cable. The connected load in Part No.1 was 352 H.P. and in Part No.2 340 H .P. load was unauthorisedly joined. Thus, the total connected load was 692 H.P. Though the respondent No.1 was not permitted to use the power supply in Part No.2, it was using power from Part No.1 to Part No.2. This amounts to unauthorized use of electricity by respondent No.1. 2.1. Pursuant to the checking, provisional bill dated 29.08.2011 by invoking Section 126 of the Electricity Act was issued for an amount of Rs.1,06,26,204/- and opportunity was given to respondent No.1 to object against the said bill and pursuant to hearing, the bill was reduced and final assessment was given of Rs.52,06,835/-. 2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid final assessment of supplementary bill, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act by making payment of Rs.26,03,417/- being 50% of the bill amount. It is submitted that the objections against the respondent No.1 was of use of electricity in another premises other than the premises for which authorized connection was given. It is submitted that the objections against the respondent No.1 was of use of electricity in another premises other than the premises for which authorized connection was given. It is submitted that the place where power was being used in adjacent premises was not shown within the power boundary at the time of connection. It is submitted that though the respondent No.1 had applied for using the electricity in the adjoining place belonging to one M/s. Aarcee Precision Casting which the respondent No.1 had taken on rent, yet permission was not granted as respondent No.1 had failed to produce valid document of ownership and was not able to explain the ownership of 7.5 meter open space between both the plots and on account of the open space, which is a road, premises cannot be considered to be joint premises and therefore, there is no provision by which electric company could have allowed taking of electricity from connection of one premises to another though it may have been occupied by the same consumer. 2.3. Reliance is placed upon the approved sketch of RUDA to show that between two premises there existed 7.5 meter open land. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that this open land is a road between the two premises and even though it is not demarcated as a public road, nonetheless it being a road, premises cannot be amalgamated. Learned advocate drew attention of this Court to such map contending that the survey numbers of both the premises were quite different and as there is no policy to recognize them to be a joint premises, permission to transfer electric power from one premises to another cannot be permitted. 3. Learned senior advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner has adopted unfair approach towards its consumer. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 had applied for permission to utilize power from its existing manufacturing unit to the additional unit set up on the adjoining piece of land. It is submitted that there is no provision either in the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Electricity Supply Code framed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission that prohibits extension of power supply from existing premises to adjoining premises. Despite this, the application of respondent No.1 was not considered in the proper perspective by the petitioner who unreasonable insisted for amalgamation of plots of land. Despite this, the application of respondent No.1 was not considered in the proper perspective by the petitioner who unreasonable insisted for amalgamation of plots of land. Thereafter, citing an irrelevant clause in the permission order granted by the Rajkot Urban Development Authority, the petitioner did not further process the application of respondent No.1. However, subsequently when the Work Commencement and Completion Report was filed by the respondent No.1 together with the prescribed fees the same was accepted by the petitioner, which gave an impression that the petitioner had accepted the application of respondent No.1 for extension of existing power supply to the unit set up on adjoining land. All of a sudden after about 11 months, on the basis of a report of its Checking Team, the petitioner came up with a case of unauthorized use of electricity. 3.1. It is submitted that the petitioner’s officer i.e. Executive Engineer, City Division-3, inspected the HT connection of respondent No.1 on 26.10.2010. The appellate authority has also observed that at that time power was being used by respondent No.1 on adjoining land. However, no objection or dispute was raised by the officer of the petitioner in respect of the same and also no remarks/observations were made in the Checking Sheet regarding use of electrical power at the adjoining land. It is also observed that for a period of about 10 months after the checking on 26.10.2010, the petitioner did not give any notice to respondent No.1 regarding unauthorized use of electricity and also did not reject respondent No.1’s application. 3.2. It is submitted that the authorities have come to conclusion on the basis of evidence about the finding of fact. The petitioner in its pleadings has not produced anything to establish anything to the contrary on the basis of evidence about such finding of fact. It is submitted that the authorities have come to the conclusion that there is no public road/any type of road between the two premises which would prevent the electricity company from permitting the transfer of electricity power from one premises of the respondent No.1 to another premises of the respondent No.1. Therefore, on flimsy ground, the supplementary bill has been issued. Therefore, on flimsy ground, the supplementary bill has been issued. It is a specific finding that between the two premises there exits common boundary wall and therefore, the stand of the electric company that there is an open space or an open road cannot be accepted without there being any evidence. The petitioner has produced on record by way of an affidavit the photographs and diagram to suggest that between two premises, there is no open space and the open space as identified is of margin within which premises occupier has not permitted to construct and therefore, the stand of the petitioner is unjustified. It is also submitted that since there was checking sheet submitted on 26.10.2010 by the petitioner for HT installation of the respondent-premises and once that is done there is no question to utilize the electricity unauthorizedly. 4. The Court has heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The bone of contention between the parties is with regards to transfer of electric power from one premises occupied by the respondent No.1 where an authorized connection was given to adjacent premises, which was procured subsequently for expansion on lease/rent and transfer of electricity to the subsequently acquired premises. The main objection of the petitioner electric company appears that there is no policy for transferring the electric power from one premises of same consumer to another premises in case both the premises are divided by road. It was contended that Section 126 of the Act was invoked as such transfer had taken place by a cable, joining one premises to another without any permission and therefore, unauthorizedly use. 5. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are that Amul Crankshaft Private Limited-respondent No.1 has established its manufacturing unit in Shed No.2 of Ashish Industrial Compound. At the said place, the respondent No.1 is having HT connection bearing No.26433 with Contract Demand of 250 KV provided by the petitioner. Due to expansion of business, the respondent No.1 decided to set-up another manufacturing unit. But because of shortage of space on the existing facility, respondent No.1 was constrained to take on lease the shed, admeasuring 702 Sq.Mtrs of Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited. Situated on the land adjoining to the existing facility of respondent No.1. Due to expansion of business, the respondent No.1 decided to set-up another manufacturing unit. But because of shortage of space on the existing facility, respondent No.1 was constrained to take on lease the shed, admeasuring 702 Sq.Mtrs of Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited. Situated on the land adjoining to the existing facility of respondent No.1. For the purpose of catering the power requirement of the new unit, the respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 16.04.2010 informed the petitioner that in had taken on lease adjoining shed admeasuring 702 Sq.Mtrs of Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited and requested the petitioner to do the needful and to consider both sheds as the premises of respondent No.1 . It was also mentioned in the said letter that respondent No.1 would also obtain the wiring approved by the Electrical Inspector. With the said letter a copy of lease agreement and sketch of the premises were enclosed. The petitioner vide its letter dated 06.5.2010 replied to the aforesaid letter of respondent No.1 and asked for furnishing ownership documents pertaining to the shed of Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited within 10 days. The respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 12.05.2010 provided the required ownership document and requested the petitioner to take further action in the matter. The petitioner vide its letter dated 23.08.2010, inter alia, informed that on verification of the documents provided by respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 12.05.2010, it is found that the premises which is sought to be amalgamated/merged has been granted on special condition for a different purpose and on a different survey number and that in no circumstances the said premises can be amalgamated/merged with the existing premises. The respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 07.09.2010 replied to the aforesaid letter of the petitioner and, inter alia, informed that the adjoining land of Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited was also granted for industrial purpose and that there is no case of breach of conditions. The petitioner vide its letter dated 17.09.2010 responded to the letter of respondent No.1 and informed that the application dated 16.04.2010 was filed and disposed of. The petitioner vide its letter dated 17.09.2010 responded to the letter of respondent No.1 and informed that the application dated 16.04.2010 was filed and disposed of. But because of the application for review dated 07.09.2010, the petitioner has done site visit and had informed that in respect of the Development permission granted by Rajkot Urban Development Authority bearing No.RUDA/DEV/ANAND52/738/96/2538 dated 22.12.2003 in the case of amalgamation, in compliance of special condition no.3 respondent No.1 should produce “no objection certificate” of RUDA within 10 days. On 26.10.2010, the officer of the petitioner came for checking of HT installation at the premises of respondent No.1. After completing the checking, HT installation Checking Sheet was prepared by the officer. However, in the said sheet no observation or remark has been made regarding the utilization of electrical power by respondent No.1 at the adjoining shed. 6. From the record, it appears that an application was moved on 16.04.2010 for extension of the premises and to extend the electric connection which is at Annexure-R1. In response to this application of 16.04.2010, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 06.05.2010, asking the respondent No.1 to furnish documentary evidence about the occupation of adjacent premises of Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited by the respondent No.1. In response, the respondent No.1 by communication dated 12.05.2010, furnished necessary documents and explanation for requiring new place and permission for development by RUDA was also furnished, where the nature of work was also mentioned. Pursuant to this, it appears that on 26.10.2010, HT installation checking sheet was undertaken where remarks are as under:- “(1) Meter accuracy taken with help of HT Accu. Meter, found W.P.L. (2) M.D. Is excess, consumer noticed regularise” it”. 7. Considering the chronology, it can be safely presumed that with regards to the extension of boundary of the premises was within the knowledge of the petitioner electric company, still at least so far as the extension of premises is concerned, no action has been taken by the petitioner electric company or no objection is raised with regards to extension of the premises and transferring of electric power from one premises to another premises which is separated by a road be it public road or otherwise. 8. 8. Today, the main contention of the petitioner is that even if the application for extension of premises and the communication ensued thereafter, are accepted, still when there is a road in between, the policy of the electric company is not TO grant permission for transferring the electric power from one premises to another premises for the security and safety reasons. The petitioner during the course of argument has expanded the scope of this very argument by submitting that open space lying between the two premises ought to have been explained to the petitioner-company BY the respondent-company. 9. The Court has perused the documents on record which include the maps of the local authorities particularly at page 146 which is the layout place of one Ashish Industries Private Limited within whose premises both premises of M/s. Amul Crankshaft Private Limited and Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited are located. The map indicates a public road as well as internal road, however, the space between the aforementioned two premises namely Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited and M/s. Amul Crankshaft Private Limited, the open space is not indicated to be a internal road or any road for that map. The Court is therefore, of the opinion that the land lying between the two adjacent premises is the margin land which is required to be kept open both by Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited and M/s. Amul Crankshaft Private Limited. Now this open space cannot take place of a public road so as to fall within the policy of the petitioner electric company not permitting the transfer of electric power from the premises of M/s. Amul Crankshaft Private Limited to its newly acquired premises of erstwhile Aarcee Precision Casting Private Limited. 10. In the impugned order, on the basis of evidence on record, the Electrical Inspector has examined this aspect and held that the Plaintiff informed vide his letter dated: 24/09/2010 that, as per the development permission of Rajkot Urban Development Authority dated: 22/12/2003, the development charges were received by the Plaintiff in respect of the plots and plan & layout of the construction according to special condition No.9 and the permission of consolidation has been granted. The Plaintiff has produced this permission to the Respondent vide letter dated: 12/05/2010. The Plaintiff has produced this permission to the Respondent vide letter dated: 12/05/2010. After the consolidation of the plots, the test report of the electric contractor in respect of the electricity load increased in the extended premises as per section-4.6.2 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters of GERC was submitted by the consumer on 01/11/2010. Further, the necessary registration fee of the test report was also paid in the office of Respondent Electricity company on 01/11/2010. Despite that, no procedure was carried by the Respondent Electricity company as per section-5.4.1 of the Supply Code. As per section-5.4.1 of the Supply Code, after receiving the test report of the consumer, the consumer should be intimated in writing by the Electricity company about the time and date of the inspection of the power installation so that the consumer may get his electrical supervisor/contractor to be present at the relevant time. But, till ten months of the receipt of the test report, the consumer has not been intimated in writing by the Respondent Electricity Company for the inspection of the power installation as per the test report of the consumer, or the plaintiff has not been intimated by letter about filing his application after submission of application dated: 24/09/2010 and the test report by the Plaintiff, or no letter or notice has been given to the plaintiff intimating about the suspension of the electric power in the extended premises. Hence, it is to be presumed that, the Respondent Electricity Company agrees with the procedure carried out by the consumer and they have no objection against the application of the consolidation of the plots of the consumer. 11. The Electrical Inspector in the application of the respondent company has given finding as under:- “(9) Respondent checked electricity connection H.T.- 26433 of plaintiff on 26/10/2010 and filled the details in checking sheet no. HTR-00750. Respondent- Executive Engineer, City Division-3 was present during checking on 26/10/2010 and checking of HT connection was begun under his supervision. During checking, use of electricity from HT connection-26433 was going on at disputed place of plaintiff. At that time, respondent did not raise any objection or dispute regarding use of electricity in the disputed place and electricity use at the disputed place was not mentioned in checking sheet. Respondent neither issued any notice to plaintiff nor issued any supplementary bill of additional electricity use regarding unauthorized use. At that time, respondent did not raise any objection or dispute regarding use of electricity in the disputed place and electricity use at the disputed place was not mentioned in checking sheet. Respondent neither issued any notice to plaintiff nor issued any supplementary bill of additional electricity use regarding unauthorized use. (10) Respondent did not issue any notice to plaintiff from 26/10/2010 till next checking on 26/08/2011 for ten months for electricity use in extended premises nor was he intimated that application was rejected. (11) Respondent company did not make a decision regarding plaintiff’s application for premises consolidation and caused delay. Though plaintiff-customer had mentioned additional premises in test report, no procedure was carried out for the period of 10 months. Thus, it appears that plaintiff was given implied consent to use additional premises. After checking had been done by respondent on 26/08/2011, it was intimated that plaintiff-customer’s test report was rejected. The same does not appear to be proper. (12) Respondent has submitted through the letter dated 17/01/2011 that plaintiff has submitted application for consolidations of the plots and the road measuring 7.5 meters is located between aforesaid plots. But, after studying the map approved by Rajkot Urban Development Authority, it appears that there is no public road between both plots to be consolidated. Thus, it appears that respondent submitted false facts before appellate authority and attempted to mislead.” 12. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference and hence, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 13. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner has requested for staying operation of the present order. Considering the fact that the impugned order before this Court has an effect of refunding the amount back to the petitioner company, the Court deems it fit to stay the operation of this order within a period of four weeks.