SCA/1113920/2000 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11139 of 2000 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 ? ========================================================= VISHAL MALLEABLES LTD. - Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR BS PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1,MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS RV ACHARYA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 12/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned advocate Shri B.S.Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.R.V.Acharya for the respondents. SCA/1113920/2000 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. Petitioner has challenged a communication dated 11.9.2000 as at Annexure A by which the respondents sought to recover a sum of Rs.2,94,528/- from the petitioners on the ground that certain benefits were granted to the petitioner mistakenly. 3. Shortly stated, facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondents whereby electricity produced by the petitioner at Porbandar was to be used by the respondents and after deduction on certain charges was to be supplied to the petitioner at its factory at Ankleshwar. While this arrangement was being worked out, respondent upon audit objection from the Government felt that certain benefits were wrongly granted to the petitioner. Hence communication dated 11.9.2000 was issued. 4. Admittedly, before seeking recovery through the said communication, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. This being an order adverse to the petitioner, particularly in the facts of the case where certain aspects of the matter would have to be gone into before deciding whether in fact such mistake had occurred or not, such unilateral communication without hearing could not have been issued. Only on this ground, without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions, this petition is allowed quashing the order at Annexure A while permitting the respondents to SCA/1113920/2000 3/3 JUDGMENT proceed further in accordance with law after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)