Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8018/2004 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8018 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
GUJARAT
SENIOR CITIZEN FEDERATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER
- Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
NOTICE
UNSERVED for
Petitioner(s) : 1,PARTY-IN-PERSON for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PRANAV
G DESAI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 05/04/2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
The petitioner
Gujarat Senior Citizen Federation has filed this petition through
its Executive Secretary M.Praful K. Desai seeking direction from
this Court to the respondent Corporation to make available certified
copy of all relevant documents and information which the petitioner
has asked in relation to change in policy in connection with gas
connection.
This Court has issued
notice on 27.7.2004. Thereafter, rule was issued on 16.9.2005 and
matter was ordered to be expedited.
It is the case of the
petitioner that Baroda Municipal Corporation supplies gas line for
natural gas connection for domestic fuel consumption. The petitioner
vide his application dated 27.2.2004 requested the Corporation to
supply certain documents relating to new policy for gas connection,
as per which a new meter is required to be installed by the consumer
having gas connection. Since the documents were not supplied
reminder was sent on 10.5.2004. The Corporation vide its letter
dated 23.6.2004 refused to make available documents relating to new
policy and hence the petitioner has filed the present petition.
After the petition was
admitted in September, 2005 it appears that the petitioner has not
bothered for outcome of this petition. In February, 2010 fresh
notice was issued to the petitioner for final hearing, as the
petitioner is appearing as party in person. The said notice came
back unserved as the petitioner is not residing at the address given
in the cause title of the petition. Once the petition is admitted
and once it has come up for final hearing it is obligatory on the
part of the petitioner to remain in touch with the matter and to
remain present. It is not the duty of this Court to issue fresh
notice again and again.
Be that as it may, on
behalf of the respondent an affidavit-in-reply is filed. On behalf
of the respondent it is stated therein that for meters the
Corporation had invited bids and the meters of the bidders were sent
for testing by Fluid Control Research Institute, Ministry of Heavy
Industries at Kerala, which is the only testing organization in the
country. There are only two places in the whole India which
manufacture such type of meters and out of the said two parties, one
of the party’s test report was received and approved. So far as the
second party is concerned the test report is approved, but the party
is yet to restart the process of selling the meters. There is no
compulsion for consumer to take gas supplies from the respondent
Corporation. So far as reference is made to the pamphlet relating to
the important notice to the gas consumers, it is also available and
hence it cannot be said that the same has not been supplied. Even
with regard to the Resolution of the General Board the same is
attached alongwith the affidavit-in-reply. The Resolution was
passed by the Gas Committee of the respondent Corporation dated
7.3.2001. Even the Resolution passed by the General Board of the
respondent Corporation dated 16.4.2001 is also placed on record. It
was specifically denied that the Corporation has given any monopoly
for the supply of meters. Alongwith the affidavit-in-reply even the
new policy for grant of gas supply has been formulated. It is also
clarified that the issue comes within the policy matter of the
respondent Corporation. It is also provided that for those consumers
who have chosen to take gas connection and install the meters on
their own, meter rent is not recovered. While applying for gas
connection no contractual terms existed between the Corporation and
the petitioner.
In view of above
affidavit-in-reply and also in view of affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder it
appears that nothing further is required to be made in the present
petition. The petition is accordingly disposed off. Rule is
discharged without any order as to costs.
(K. A. PUJ, J.)
kks
Top