Back
2018 Supreme(Guj) 983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.M. THAKER, J.
Saurashtra Paperand Board Mills Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 20625 of 2006
Decided On : 27-07-2018
H.L. Patel, Adv., Rathin P Raval, Adv., Maya S Desai, Adv.
Headnote:
Special Civil Application - Service - Petition was listed, Learned advocate for the respondent was not present - After making submissions at length, learned advocate for the petitioner sought time to take instructions as to whether the petitioner would prefer to approach the appellate authority against the revised bill or wants to prosecute the petition - So as to enable learned advocate for the petitioner to take instruction, time was granted and vide order, the Court adjourned the proceedings - Held, As mentioned above, the petitioners apprehension with regard to the observations in the order are unjustified and ill founded - Nonetheless, so as to allay the petitioners apprehension, it is clarified that when the petitioner files appeal against the supplementary bill issued, the concerned authority will hear and decide the said appeal and all contentions which may be raised by the petitioner, independently and on the basis of material which may be placed on record by present petitioner and without being influenced by any observation in the order - It is also clarified that said order will not stand in way of the petitioner to challenge the supplementary bill and the authority will decide the appeal on its own merits and in accordance the relevant provisions including supply condition but without considering the order and without being influenced by the said order - With said clarification, the petitioner is relegated to alternative remedy with clarification that this Court has disposed of the petition only on said limited ground viz. that the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner and the subject matter of the petition involves disputed issues of facts and technical aspects - Petition disposed of. (Para 11)
K.M. THAKER, J.
1. This petition was listed on 20.7.2018. Mr. R.P.Raval, learned advocate appeared for HL Patel Advocates for the petitioner. Learned advocate for the respondent was not present on 20.7.2018. After making submissions at length, Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner sought time to take instructions as to whether the petitioner would prefer to approach the appellate authority against the revised bill or wants to prosecute the petition. So as to enable learned advocate for the petitioner to take instruction, time was granted and vide order dated 20.7.2018, the Court adjourned the proceedings to today. The said order dated 20.7.2018 reads thus:
Learned advocate for the respondent has filed sick-note. Learned advocate for the petitioner also needs time to take instruction.
Therefore, hearing is adjourned. S.O. to 27/7/2018.
1.1 It appears learned advocate is not conveyed clear and specific instructions. Therefore, he would submit to pass appropriate order in light of submissions already urged by him.
1.2 Learned advocate for the respondent was not present on 20.7.2018. Today also, learned advocate for the respondent is not present. On 20.7.2018, it was submitted that learned advocate for the respondent had filed sick note. Today, though learned advocate for the respondent has not filed leave note or sick note, she is not present.
2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:
(9b) Declare and set aside the order Dt. 24/12/03 of Appellate Committee, GEB.
(c) To order GEB to pay back the amount of money [Rs.12,64,000.00] wrongly taken from us along with 9% interest from 03/01/2004.
(d) To remand back the matter to Appellate Committed for re consideration.
3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the petitioner is a consumer of respondent No.1 electricity company. In pursuance of the request by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has granted HT connection.
3.1 It appears that subsequently, within the premise of the petitioner company, another undertaking came to be established namely, Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
It is not in dispute that said Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd. is an associate sister company of present petitioner.
It is not in dispute that the unit of the said other undertaking (Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd.) is established within the precincts of petitioner company.
3.2 The petitioner company, however, claims that it is an associate company and that it is, of course, incorporated and registered as a separate legal entity i.e. as a private limited company, whereas the petitioner is public limited company. Under the circumstances, the fact that the said other undertaking is a separate and distinct legal entity is not in dispute.
3.3 It is also not in dispute that the said other undertaking i.e. Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd. had, at the relevant point of time, when the dispute arose in or around December 2003, had not applied for separate connection and it was not a separate and independent consumer of the respondent electricity company.
3.4 The petitioner would further claim that the said other undertaking occupies the premise on lease basis and it is tenant of the petitioner company.
3.5 According to the petitioner, since the said other undertaking is its tenant, it was not necessary for the said other undertaking (Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd.) to apply for separate connection.
3.6 It is not in dispute that the petitioner supplied electricity/power to the said undertaking and the petitioner would claim that the said undertaking i.e. Saurashtra Specialities Pvt. Ltd. used electricity (petitioner's HT connection) as its tenant.
3.7 In this background, a checking squad of the respondent company visited the premises in question.
The checking squad noticed aforesaid arrangement.
The said arrangement was reported to the competent authority/company.
According to the respondent company, the said arrangement amounted impermissible sale o
