Gujarat High Court High Court

Somabhai vs State on 8 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Somabhai vs State on 8 February, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10069/1998	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 

	
	 

 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10069 of 1998
 

 


 

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

 

SOMABHAI
BHAGUBHAI RANGPARA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
SATYEN B RAWAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR NK MAJMUDAR for
Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 03/09/2007 

 

 
 


 

 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
learned advocate Shri A.B.Ghatesania for learned advocate Shri Satyen
B.Raval for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms.Trusha Patel,
learned AGP for the respondent no.1-State of Gujarat and
Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-Gujarat
Electricity Board. Petitioner had approached this Court for
reconnection of the electricity which was disconnected by the
respondent no.2 for non-payment of bill for an amount of Rs.6,994.53.

Though
there is some dispute about the bill being for outstanding dues of
the petitioner or that of the erstwhile owner of the land purchased
by the petitioner wherein the electric connection was granted, in the
facts of this case, it is not necessary to go into this matter.

While
admitting the petition, the learned Single Judge has directed by way
of interim relief to reconnect the electric connection of the
petitioner on the petitioner depositing the balance amount of
supplementary bill and other legally leviable charges. It is not in
dispute that pursuant to the said interim order, upon petitioner
depositing the balance amount, the respondent no.2 had at the
relevant time granted reconnection.

Since,
the petitioner had paid up the dues and since the GEB has reconnected
the electric supply, nothing further is required to be done in this
behalf. In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of
requiring no further orders.

Petition
stands disposed of accordingly.

(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)

(ila)

   

Top