SCA/5265/1997 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5265 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ================================================= 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 ? ================================================= KANTABEN SHANTILAL THAKKAR - Petitioner(s) Versus SURAT ELECTRICITY COMPANY LTD. - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR RS SANJANWALA for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 02/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The present petition is filed challenging the notice dated 11h July 1997 bearing No.DN/ 68/05/0994. It is stated in the notice that the bill dated 28.06.1997 pertaining to the period from 22.05.1997 to 21.06.1997 for an amount of Rs.1,48,429.37 is not paid though the time to pay the said amount has expired on 08.07.1997. The petition was affirmed on 18th day July 1997 and was filed on the same day with an urgent note. Notice was issued on 18.07.1997 SCA/5265/1997 2/5 JUDGMENT returnable on 24.07.1997. The petitioner was permitted to serve the respondent by direct service. The matter had thereafter been adjourned to 28.07.1997, 04.08.1997, 07.08.1997 and 08.08.1997. On 08.08.1997 the Court passed an order that, “Absent. Dismissed.” Later on, the matter was restored on an oral request and was adjourned to 14.08.1997. On 14.08.1997, again the matter was dismissed as the learned advocate for the petitioner was not present. However, it was again restored on an oral request and was adjourned to 21.08.1998. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 02.09.1997 and 10.09.1997. On 10.09.1997 the court again passed an order that, “Absent. Dismissed.” Again the matter was restored on an oral request and adjourned to 18.09.1997. The matter, thereafter, was adjourned to 03.10.1997, 08.10.1997 and 13.10.1997. On 13.10.1997 again the Court passed order that, “Absent. Dismissed.” Again the Court restored the matter on oral request and adjourned to 21.10.1997. The matter then after was adjourned to 13.11.1997, and thereafter was listed on 01.04.1998. On that the Court again issued notice returnable on 01.05.1998. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 22.06.1998, and 20.07.1998. On 20.07.1998, the Court passed the following order: “Respondent company though served has opted to remain absent. Rule returnable on 3.8.1998. Interim relief in terms of para 11(C) is granted. DS is permitted. Prayer clause 11(C) reads as under: “Pending hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the SCA/5265/1997 3/5 JUDGMENT respondent-company from disconnecting the Service Connection No.125937 in pursuance of the impugned demand notice Annexure 'A' hereto dated 11.7.97 bearing Ref.No.DN/68/05/0994. The matter was then listed on 30.06.2006 and the Court passed the following order: “Mr.Dilip Kanojia prays for time to take instructions. S.O. To 10th July 2006.” On 10.07.2006 the Court passed the following order: “Mr.Dilip Kanojia for Mr.Sanjanwala prays for time to take instructions. S.O to 17.7.06.” On 17.07.2006, the Court passed order that, “Mr.Kanojia prays for time to take instructions. SO to 19.8.06.” The matter was then listed on 21.04.2008 and the Court passed the following order: “When the matter is called, learned advocate for petitioner is not present. Adjourned.: 2. The matter thereafter is listed today. Today, when called out, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. 3. The petition is filed challenging the notice issued by Surat Electricity Company Limited. The said notice is contended to be arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, whereby it is stated in para 2 of the petition that the company has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,35,349.37. It will be worth noticing that the amount mentioned in the Notice dated 11.07.1997 produced at Annexure 'A' to the petition is Rs.1,48,429.37, and not Rs.4,35,349.37. The averments made in SCA/5265/1997 4/5 JUDGMENT para 5 are required to be taken into consideration, which read as under: “The petitioner is also owner of one Industrial Shed at Hariom Industrial Coop. Society Ltd., Shed No.21, Udhna Magdalla Road, Majura, Surat, wherein respondent company has been supplying electricity. The petitioner service connection number is 093419. The petitioner service connection is now disconnected. The petitioner has all throughout given the shed on rent to various parties, the last tenant being Jayantibhai Hazari, who used the industrial shed as a tenant till 1987. The petitioner states at this stage that the petitioner's husband was looking after all the affairs relating to the industrial shed no.21 at Hariom Industrial Coop. Society; that the petitioner is not completely conversant with the facts. However, the relevant facts are that on 19.1.87 the respondent company raised bill of Rs.12,370.76 upon the petitioner which bill was obviously for electricity consumed by erstwhile tenant Shri Jayantibhai Hazari. Thereafter, from time to time various bills have been raised calling upon the petitioner to pay a minimum monthly charges and the delay payment charges on the aforesaid bill of Rs.12,370.76. As per the latest bill a sum of Rs.1,48,429.37 is due and payable according to the respondent company by the petitioner in connection with Service No.093419. Hereto annexed and marked ANNEXURE 'B' is the copy of the latest bill received from the respondent company for Industrial Shed No.21 at Hariom Industrial Coop. Society Ltd., having Service No.093419.” 4. In para 6 of the petition the petitioner has disputed her liability to pay the amount demanded by respondent contending that the petitioner had made several oral requests and also given various notices to respondent company, inter alia, calling upon the respondent not to persist with their demand and to drop the same as the amount is not payable by the petitioner as demanded by the respondent company. From para 6 it is clear that the original demand of Rs.12,370/- was made for the first time in 1987. Thus, it is clear that the matter by now is more than two decades old. The petitioner having obtained interim relief from this Court is in no SCA/5265/1997 5/5 JUDGMENT mood to go on with the matter. Having examined the matter, it is found that no case is made out for interference at this hands of this Court. Hence the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. No order as to cost. It is clarified that dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner to contend in proceedings which he may institute that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount demanded and contest the demand made by the notice impugned. (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) karim