Gujarat High Court High Court

Bhagirathi vs State on 11 May, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Bhagirathi vs State on 11 May, 2011
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3223/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3223 of 2011
 

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

 

BHAGIRATHI
PROTEINS - PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MS
MOXA THAKKAR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. 
MS LILU K BHAYA for Respondent(s) : 3, 
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

 


 

Date
: 11/05/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. Mr.

Mangukiya, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to
show the rule, which is sought to be challenged, namely rule 7 of the
Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code
and Related Matters] Regulation, 2005. The pertinent aspect is that
it is on account of the said challenge, the matter is placed before
the Division Bench. Under the circumstances, we are unable to
entertain the challenge as sought to be canvassed.

2. However,
he voiced the apprehension that if the matter is not heard today, the
testing of the meter shall be completed in the laboratory and he
further apprehends that a complaint may also be filed under the
Indian Electricity Act.

3. We
cannot examine the matter on hypothesis that the complaint would be
filed. However, if the testing of the meter is to be made and the
petitioner is called upon to remain present, he may do so if he so
desires on his own volition. The report, if any, may be considered by
the Court at the later stage. Hence S O to 15/06/2011.

[
JAYANT PATEL, J. ]

[
J.C. UPADHYAYA, J.]

* Pansala.

   

Top