Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3332/1997 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3332 of 1997
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=============================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=============================================
JOSHI
MANUBHAI BHOGILAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
ELECTRICITY BOARD & 3 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR
AM RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,3 - 4.
MR RC JANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 22/10/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioner has challenged the communication dated 26.08.1996 from the
respondent No.1 ? Gujarat Electricity Board. As per the say of
the petitioner, the father of the petitioner had sold his flour mill
to the respondent No.3 herein and it is the respondent No.3 who has
utilized the electricity connection for running such flour mill. When
the Electricity Company has raised the bill for outstanding unpaid
dues for consumption of electricity amounting to Rs.8557/-, the
petitioner contended that it was the respondent No.3 who had consumed
the electricity and therefore, he was liable to pay the electricity
charges. The stand of the Electricity Company as emerging from its
communication dated 26.08.1996 which is produced at Annexure-F to the
petition that Bhogilal Chhotalal was the person who was granted
electricity connection but since he expired, the petitioner being
heir of the deceased, it was the duty of the petitioner to pay the
bill. The transaction of the sale of the flour mill between the
father of the petitioner and the respondent No.3 was an internal
affair.
It
is undisputed that the electricity connection was running in the name
of Bhogilal Chhotalal i.e. father of the petitioner. Even if the
said Bhogilal Chhotalal had sold his flour mill to the respondent
No.3, he never requested the electricity company to transfer the
electrical connection in the name of the respondent No.3 or
disconnect the same. Electricity consumption charges was required to
be paid by the consumer in whose name the electrical connection was
granted and the petitioner as heir was liable to pay the same. If the
father of the petitioner and after his death, the petitioner had
ceased to be consumer, it was their duty to have electrical
connection discontinued.
Under
the circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned
communication. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Rule
is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(
Akil Kureshi, J. )
kailash,
p.s.
Top