Arun Bhansali, J.:— This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to shift electricity connection from Khasra No. 216 to Khasra No. 86 of village Dusarana Bara and to release the electricity connection to the petitioner add the shifted khasara.
2. The petitioner owns a piece of agricultural land at Khasara No. 216 and his adoptive mother Smt. Ridhu Devi is having another piece of land comprised in Khasara No. 86; the Petitioner applied with the respondent-Nigam for agricultural electricity connection on his land comprised in Khasara No. 216 in 2007; the electricity connection was sanctioned in the year 2010 and the demand notice was issued, which was deposited by the petitioner within stipulated time.
3. It is submitted that on account of insufficient ground water in Khasara No. 216, the petitioner applied for shifting it connection from the said Khasara to Khasara No. 86 on the land belonging to his mother on 13.10.2010 (Annex.11); the Executive Engineer reported to the Assistant Engineer that the application was not as per Rajasthan Electricity Ordinance (‘REO’) 145, as directed by the Superintending Engineer.
4. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer again by his letter dated 04.11.2010 (Annex.12) indicated to the Superintending that under REO 145, the connection can be shifted among mother and son, however, as the matter is of mother and adopted son and the adoption deed was registered in the year 2002, the approval was necessary.
5. It is submitted that the approval was not forthcoming and the petitioner's electricity connection was not being sanctioned and shifted to Khasara No. 86.
6. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, wherein, doubt has been raised regarding the adoption deed and it is submitted that the REO 145, pertains to shifting of connection between mother and son and as the petitioner is adopted son, the said REO 145, as no application.
7. Both the learned counsel for the parties made submissions in terms of the pleadings; while learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that once the petitioner has been adopted vide registered adoption deed dated 08.01.2002, the respondents are bound in terms of REO 145 and they cannot distinguish between son and adopted son and, therefore, action of the respondents cannot be sustained.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plain language of the provision provides for shifting of connection between mother and son. The same pertains to blood relations only and it cannot be said that son in such case would include adopted son. Further submission has been made that the adoption deed (Annex.2) cannot be said to be an adoption as such and as such the petitioner is not entitled for shifting of the connection.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.
10. A look at the provision REO 145 (Annex.7) filed by the petitioner, reveals that the transfer of connection is permissible among mother and son besides other relatives.
11. The submission made by counsel for the respondents that the said provision is confined to blood relation only is apparently not borne out from the said REO 145.
12. Section 3(57) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 defines son and read as under:
“son”, in the case of any one whose personal law permits adoption, shall include an adopted son;
13. A bare perusal of the said definition reveals that son in the case of any one whose personal law permits adoption, shall include an adopted son. The petitioner has placed on record the registered adoption deed (Annex.2), which was executed way back in the year 2002.
14. So far as the objection of learned counsel for the respondents regarding the nature and language of the adoption deed is concerned, apparently the respondents cannot raise such a dispute especially in view of the fact that the registered adoption deed pertains to the year 2002 while the application for connection was made in the year 2007, therefore, it cannot be said that the document was a procured document.
15. In view of the above, the stand of the respondents and consequential inaction in not permitting the shifting of the electricity connection from Khasara No. 216 to Khasara No. 86, cannot be sustained.
16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the connection to the petitioner and shift the connection from Khasara No. 216 of village Dusarana Bara to Khasara No. 86 of village Dusarana Bara in accordance with law.
17. The action shall be taken by the respondents expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from today.
Comments