JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocate, Mr. Harshad K. Patel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr. Dipak Dave for the respondent no.3 waives service of notice of Rule. 2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent no.3 be directed to grant fresh electricity connection to the petitioner in view of the application submitted by the petitioner. 3. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Bhoomi Thakore for the petitioner, learned advocate, Mr. Harshad Patel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Mr. Dipak Dave for the respondent no.3. 4. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition, learned advocates appearing for the parties have jointly requested that this petition be disposed of at an admission stage. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a registered Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. She submitted that on 30.05.2003, the petitioner entered into rent agreement with the private respondents and since last 14 years, the petitioner is in occupation and possession of the premises in question. She submitted that the dispute arose between the parties and, therefore, the petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No.708/2017 before the concerned civil court at Vadodara and along with the said suit, the petitioner has also filed an application, Exh.5 for injunction. It is submitted that the concerned civil court has passed an order dated 04.08.2018 below application, Exh.5 and thereby allowed the application filed by the petitioner for injunction and the private respondents are restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that the said order is not challenged by the private respondents before the higher forum. 6. At this stage, it is submitted that the electric connection was provided to the petitioner by the respondent, which had Meter Connection No.43670, Customer ID No.14528013835. It is submitted that on 05.02.2018, the respondent no.3 – Electricity Company has disconnected the power supply of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner filed an application vide Exh.16 before the concerned civil court for the grant of electric connection, however, the said application came to be dismissed by the civil court vide order dated 08.05.2018 on the ground that the present petitioner has not joined the Electricity Company as party defendant in the said civil suit. It is submitted that the petitioner filed an application vide Exh.16 before the concerned civil court for the grant of electric connection, however, the said application came to be dismissed by the civil court vide order dated 08.05.2018 on the ground that the present petitioner has not joined the Electricity Company as party defendant in the said civil suit. It is submitted that the petitioner, therefore, filed petition being Special Civil Application No.9891/2018 before this Court challenging the said order passed by the concerned civil court, wherein the direction was also sought that the respondent – Electricity Company be directed to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner. It is contended that this Court vide order dated 15.03.2019 disposed of the said petition with certain directions to the Electricity Company. The petitioner was directed to file an application for restoration of the electricity supply or for a fresh connection within stipulated time and the respondent no.3 was directed to consider the request in accordance with law and in accordance with the Supply Code. Learned advocate has referred to the said order, copy of which is placed on record at Page No.35. 7. Learned advocate, Ms. Thakore would further submit that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner submitted an application dated 16.04.2019 before the respondent no.3, thereafter, the documentary evidence were also supplied to the respondent no.3 including indemnity bond. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that by way of impugned communication dated 02.05.2019, the respondent no.3 has informed the petitioner that the petitioner has not produced the documentary evidence as per Clause 4.16 of the Supply Code. It is further stated that after such documents are supplied, appropriate decision will be taken for the grant of electricity connection to the petitioner. 8. At this stage, learned advocate, Ms. Thakore has referred to the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner including the indemnity bond, professional tax bill issued by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and the copy of the cheques issued by the petitioner to the Corporation. After referring to the said documents, it is contended that in fact, the petitioner has complied with the conditions of Clause 4.16 of the Supply Code and, therefore, the respondent no.3 ought to have granted connection to the petitioner pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged that appropriate direction be issued to the respondent no.3. After referring to the said documents, it is contended that in fact, the petitioner has complied with the conditions of Clause 4.16 of the Supply Code and, therefore, the respondent no.3 ought to have granted connection to the petitioner pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged that appropriate direction be issued to the respondent no.3. 9. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Dave appearing for the respondent no.3 has referred to the affidavit in reply and, thereafter, contended that the petitioner has not supplied the documents as per Clause 4.16 of the Supply Code and, therefore, the petitioner was informed to supply the said documents. Thus, no error is committed by the respondent no.3. 10. Learned advocate, Mr. Harshad Patel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has also referred to the averments made in the affidavit in reply and, thereafter, submitted that the petitioner is an encroacher and for the same relief, when the petitioner has filed an application, Exh.16 before the concerned civil court in pending suit, the said application was not entertain by the civil court and, therefore for the same prayer, the present petition is not maintainable and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the present petition. 11. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that the petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No.708/2017 before the concerned civil court at Vadodara along with an application, Exh.5. The concerned civil court vide order dated 04.08.2018 has granted injunction in favour of the petitioner and, thereafter, directed the private respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner with regard to the subject property. If the copy of the application, Exh.5 filed by the petitioner before the concerned civil court is carefully seen, it is revealed that in Para No.2 of the said application, specific averments are made by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is in possession of the land bearing Property No.05-00001-101, Census No.05-16-512-000001-101. Thus, the dispute before the concerned civil court is with regard to the said property. It is the specific case before the concerned civil court that the petitioner is a tenant of the subject property and in possession of the subject property since the year 2013. 12. Thus, the dispute before the concerned civil court is with regard to the said property. It is the specific case before the concerned civil court that the petitioner is a tenant of the subject property and in possession of the subject property since the year 2013. 12. At this stage, if the documents placed on record by the petitioner are carefully examined, it is revealed that in the receipt issued by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation for the professional tax, copies of which are placed on record at Page Nos.4546, the name and address of the petitioner is specifically mentioned in the said receipts. Further in the passbook, the address of the subject property is mentioned. The petitioner has also produced copy of tax bill issued by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation for the subject property and in the column of occupation of the said tax bill, it is mentioned as tenant. On Page No.52 of the compilation, copy of the cheque issued by the petitioner to the Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara for an amount of Rs.25,000/is produced and in the receipt for the payment of the dues produced at Page No.51 of the compilation, it tallies with the cheque amount and in column of occupation of the said receipt, tenant is mentioned. The said cheque bearing No.000592 issued to the Vadodara Municipal Corporation towards the dues of tax is reflected in the copy of the passbook of the petitioner at Page No.49 of the compilation for the entry dated 15.11.2018. Thus prima facie from the aforesaid document, it is revealed that the petitioner is a tenant of the subject property, for which, property tax bill has been issued by the Corporation and the petitioner has made the payment by way of cheque to the respondent – Corporation. Similar type of bills are also placed on record by the petitioner during the period between 2014 to 2018. 13. Similar type of bills are also placed on record by the petitioner during the period between 2014 to 2018. 13. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to Clause 4.16 of the Supply Code, which reads as under, “4.16 Any of the following documents shall be considered as acceptable proof of ownership of occupancy of premises; (1) Copy of registered sale deed or lease deed or in the case of agricultural connections a copy of 7/12, 8A and hakk patrak (6A); (2) Latest Municipal tax receipt or Demand notice or any other related documents; (3) Letter of allotment; (4) Ownership Certificate issued by village level Government functionary; (5) An applicant who is not an owner but an occupier of the premises shall, along with any one of the documents listed at (1) to (3) above, also furnish a No Objection Certificate from owner of the premises except lease holder where long lease is granted for premises. Where the NOC from the owner of the premises is not available due to any reason (s), new connection be allowed on the basis of submission of indemnity bond prescribed by the Distribution Licensee to indemnify the Distribution Licensee against losses on account of disputes that may arise out of effecting service connection to him.” 14. From the aforesaid provision of Supply Code, it is clear that the documents, which are referred to in the said clause, shall be considered as acceptable as proof of ownership or occupancy of the premises. The petitioner has produced the latest municipal tax receipts, wherein in column of occupation, word 'tenant' is mentioned but the fact remains that the said bill is for the subject property as observed hereinabove. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has filed civil suit for the subject property, wherein the petitioner has filed an application, Exh.5 and in Para No.2 of the said application, description of the subject property is referred to. The petitioner has also issued cheque for the property tax bill in favour of the Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara and the said cheque is honoured, which can be seen from the passbook of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has also placed on record the receipt of the professional tax bill, wherein the name and address of the petitioner is mentioned. The petitioner has also issued cheque for the property tax bill in favour of the Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara and the said cheque is honoured, which can be seen from the passbook of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has also placed on record the receipt of the professional tax bill, wherein the name and address of the petitioner is mentioned. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has provided documents as per subcause (2) of Clause 4.16 of the Supply Code i.e. the latest municipal tax receipt or demand notice or any other related documents. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that as per subclause (5) of Clause 4.16 of the Supply Code, if the applicant is not the owner but the occupier of the premises, along with any of the documents which are referred to in Clause (1) to (3), he has to furnish No Objection Certificate from the owner of the premises, however where NOC of the owner of the premises is not available due to any reason, indemnity bond prescribed by the Electricity Company be given by the applicant. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the petitioner has provided the latest municipal tax receipts as well as other related documents and professional tax receipt and also provided indemnity bond. 15. The contention raised by learned advocate, Mr. Harshad Patel appearing for the private respondents that for same relief, when the petitioner has filed an application, Exh.16 before the concerned civil court pending suit, same was rejected by the concerned civil court and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the present petition, is misconceived. As observed hereinabove, the concerned civil court has not entertained the said application on the ground that the Electricity Company was not joined as party defendant in the said application. As observed hereinabove, the concerned civil court has not entertained the said application on the ground that the Electricity Company was not joined as party defendant in the said application. Further, the said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Application No.9891/2018 and this Court vide order dated 15.03.2019, disposed of the said petition by granting liberty to the petitioner and made following observations, “i) The petitioner shall approach respondent No.3 with a specific application either for restoration of electricity supply or for a fresh connection within a period of fifteen days from today and upon such receipt of application of the petitioner, the respondent No.3, as has willingly accepted the exercise of considering the request of the petitioner, is directed to take appropriate decision at the earliest but shall not be later than two weeks from the date of receipt of application. (ii) The electricity company is directed to consider the request in either way strictly in accordance with the rules of Supply Code and in accordance with law applicable to it. (iii) This Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to grant or refusal of such request of the petitioner and it is independently left upon for the electricity company to take decision on merit in accordance with law.” 16. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner has filed fresh application before the respondent no.3 with relevant documents and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the submission canvassed by learned advocate for the private respondent. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition deserves to be allowed in the peculiar facts of the present case and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has filed civil suit for the subject property and civil court has granted injunction in favour of the petitioner and when the petitioner has placed on record documentary evidence including the documents, which are sought for as per Clause 4.16 of the Supply code, in the peculiar facts, the respondent no.3 ought to have accepted the application filed by the petitioner and ought to have granted electricity connection to the petitioner. 18. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed as prayed for. 18. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed as prayed for. The respondent no.3 is hereby directed to grant electricity connection to the petitioner for the subject property within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order on payment of necessary prescribed charges for the new electric connection. 19. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.