Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6226/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6226 of 2007
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 ?
=========================================================
SPACE
ELECTRONICS - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
ENGINEER (O & M)-MADHYAGUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BM VAISHNAV for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS ML
SHAH, AGP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 22/11/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioner is a consumer of electricity. For unauthorised use of
electricity, provisional assessment of Rs.62,034.81ps was made by
the company. Final bill was issued on 2.9.2005. Petitioner preferred
appeal against the said notice. Before preferring such appeal, it
may be noted that, petitioner had approached the District Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum. His application came to be dismissed on
18.1.2007 holding that complaint is not maintainable. Thereupon the
petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The
Appellate Authority however, by impugned communication dated
17.2.2007 dismissed the appeal on the ground that same was not
preferred within 39 days in terms of Section 127 of the Electricity
Act, 2003.
Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was agitating issue
before the Consumer forum under bona fide belief that said forum
having jurisdiction. As soon as his complaint came to be dismissed
as not maintainable, he preferred appeal which came to be dismissed.
Same ought to have been entertained on merits.
On
the other hand, learned counsel for the Electricity board contended
that no application for condonation of delay was filed. Appellate
Authority therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal as being time
barred.
In
facts of the case, I am of the opinion that petitioner should be
given an opportunity to explain delay, particularly, when it is his
case that he was under bona fide belief agitating the issue before
the District Consumer Forum which eventually dismissed the complaint
as not maintainable.
In
the result, impugned communication dated 17.2.2007 is quashed. The
petitioner shall file application for condonation of delay in the
appeal which is already presented before the Appellate Authority. If
such application is filed within two weeks from today, same shall be
considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
Disposed
of accordingly. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top