Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6473/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6473 of 2010
=========================================================
BHARTI
AIRTEL LTD, THROUGH CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, RITESH V - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PASCHIM
GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHALIN N MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
MANISHA LAVKUMAR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 15/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. Shalin N. Mehta for petitioner and learned
Advocate Ms.Manisha Lavkumar for respondent Electricity
Company.Learned Advocate Ms. Manisha Lavkumar for respondent
electricity company seeks leave to amend affidavit in reply which is
granted.
In
this petition, petitioner has challenged action on the part of
respondent Electricity Company in disconnecting power supply of
petitioner’s cell site generates in village Baradiya by issuing show
cause notice dated 7th May, 2010 to proceed against
petitioner under section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003
asking petitioner to give an Indemnity Bond.
Learned
Advocate Mr. Mehta for petitioner submitted that respondent
Electricity Company has not provided any provisional assessment to
petitioner for which petitioner is prepared to pay amount without
prejudice to his rights and contentions, so, petitioner may be able
to get reconnection of electricity from respondent electricity
company.
Learned
Advocate Ms. Manisha Lavkumar for respondent Electricity Company has
submitted that detailed affidavit in reply has been filed by
respondent company. Considering affidavit in reply filed by
respondent company, para 12 thereof is quoted as under:
12. I
say and submit that accordingly, under the provisions of sections
135 and 138 of the Act, necessary F.I.R. is also registered with
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Rajkot and the matter is being
investigated. I say and submit that the petitioner’s contention that
he is ready and willing to pay any amount so stipulated under the
supplementary bill and thereby entitled to his reconnection, is not
tenable in as much as the petitioner has been booked for offence
punishable under section 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003
whereunder a duty is cast upon him to reveal the name of the person
from whom such external devices are obtained and in the event the
petitioner is unable to state the name of such person he has to give
undertaking to the said effect that he is unaware of any such person
from whom such device has been purchased or obtained or he is is any
such know of. On his filing such undertaking, commercial connection
would be restored. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R2 is copy
of such undertaking which the petitioner is required to be furnished
on payment of necessary re-connection charges as stipulated under
the Act.
Therefore,
she submitted that undertaking as referred to in above paragraph 12,
if it is to be submitted by petitioner to respondent electricity
Company, then, respondent electricity company is prepared to
reconnect electricity to the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta
for petitioner submitted that petitioner will give such undertaking
as referred to in paragraph 12 within period of one week from today
and thereafter, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned advocate for
respondent electricity company submitted that on the basis of such
undertaking, respondent company will reconnect power supply
electricity on payment of reconnection charges by petitioner
immediately after receiving undertaking from petitioner and
reconnection charges. It is made clear by this court that in this
particular case, no assessment has been made by respondent
electricity company and, therefore, it is required undertaking as
referred to in paragraph 12 by Respondent Company.
In
view of aforesaid observations and directions, present petition is
disposed of by this court without prejudice to rights and
contentions of both parties and also without expressing any opinion
on merits. However, in case of any difficulty, it is open to both
parties to apply before this Court. Direct Service is Permitted.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.)
Vyas
Top