SCA/22838/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22838 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 ? ========================================================= THE DEPUTY ENGINEER & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus VRAJLAL MANSUKHLAL JAGANI - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS FALGUNI TRIVEDI, FOR MS LILU K BHAYA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR CL SONI for Respondent(s) , ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 22/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned advocate Ms.Falguni Trivedi for the petitioner and learned advocate Shri CL Soni for the respondent. SCA/22838/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 10th August 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Gandol in Civil Misc. Appeal No.26/07. By the said order, the appellate Court had rejected the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 20th June 2007 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Dhoraji below Ex.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.59/07 filed by the respondent herein. 3. The petitioner is an Electricity Company providing electricity to the consumers. The respondent was given one such electricity connection for his domestic use. Father of the respondent also was granted one such connection. Apparently, father of the respondent expired since long time. However, electricity connection granted in his name was not discontinued. In a surprise check carried out by the petitioner of the premise of the respondent, it was found that both the connections were put to unauthorized use. So far as the connection of the respondent is concerned, a bill of Rs.3962.50 was issued which the respondent paid up. Regarding other connection which was in the name of the father of the respondent, considering the misuse, the petitioner issued a bill of Rs.82,523.88. Since the respondent refused to pay the said amount, his own connection was discontinued. He, therefore, filed the above mentioned regular civil suit and also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to SCA/22838/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT reconnect his electricity supply. Below Ex.5, the Trial Court passed order in his favour granting 7 days to the petitioner to reconnect the electricity supply of the respondent. The petitioner herein unsuccessfully appealed against the said order. The petitioner company is therefore before this Court challenging these orders passed by the courts below. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I find that the courts below committed serious legal error in granting mandatory injunction of the respondent. This is not a case where father of the respondent had incurred certain monetary liabilities which the petitioner was seeking to enforce against the respondent. Here is a case where the connection given in the name of the father of the respondent continued long after his death and was found to have been misused. The connection is in the premise occupied by the respondent. These are some of the prima facie aspects of the matter which could not have been ignored while passing the interim orders. When the above aspects emerge, it becomes apparent that courts below committed a grave error in directing reconnection of the electricity supply of the respondent without payment of the supplementary bill. 5. In the result, the impugned orders are quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. It is made clear that the above observations and conclusions are purely adhoc and are SCA/22838/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT meant only for the purpose of deciding the issue at interim stage and shall in no manner affect either side in the pending suit. With these observations, the petition is allowed and disposed of. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)