IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7788 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

==========================================================

PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD & ANR.

Versus HATIMALI AABBASALI VAIJLANI ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HEM R DAVE for MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR MEHUL M SOJITRA(5226) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI Date : 03/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

“7(A) A writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash and set aside impugned order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Gondal in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.08 of 2014;

(B) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Gondal in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.08 of 2014;

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted.”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hem R. Dave for the petitioners, learned advocate for the respondent remained absent.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul M. Sojitra waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

4. Upon request of learned advocate for the petitioners, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

5.1 Petitioner - Company had supplied electricity to one Swati Aluminum Enterprise at Plot No.43-C, GIDC, Udhyognagar.

5.2 Two civil suits bearing Special Civil Suit No.31 of 2000 and Civil Suit No.68 of 2000 came to be filed by petitioners for recovery of Rs.3,90,494.84 Ps. and Rs.16,208.41 Ps. with interest respectively against Swati Aluminum Enterprise for the recovery of arrears of consumption charges.

5.3 Both the suits came to be decreed in favour of the petitioners and execution petition came to be filed by the present petitioners being Execution Application Nos.31 of 2008 and 14 of 2011 for the recovery of the decreetal amount.

5.4 Plot No.43-C came to be auctioned in favour of M/s. Yogi Farm & Nursery, a proprietorship concern. Said M/s. Yogi Farm & Nursery filed Special Civil Suit No.158 of 2007 for reconnection of electricity supply for Plot No.43-C. The order of reconnection came to be passed and was complied with. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit praying for a relief that defendants –

present petitioners be directed to transfer the electricity connection No. 34201/56269/7 and 34207/11006/2 in the name of plaintiff. Application Exh.-5 also came to be filed praying for the same relief. The learned trial Court rejected the application Exh.-5 against which the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Gondal, and after hearing the parties, learned trial Court allowed the appeal and granted Exh.-

5 application.

5.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner at the outset contended that the challenge against impugned order is mainly on two grounds:

Firstly, the decision which has been relied upon by the learned District Court is no longer a good law in the case of K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 2023 14 SCC 141, Apex Court has held that the electricity supplier, as per electricity su