Deputy Engineer (O and M), Dakshin Gujarat VIJ Company Limited vs Govindbhai B. Patel C/o. Amit Kediya Proprietor of and 1

K.M. Thaker

Heard Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner.

1.1 Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has placed on record an undertaking/declaration dated 21.7.2012 purportedly made on

affidavit before the Notary, by one Mr. Amitkumar Pavankumar Kedia, who is said to have subsequently purchased the property in question.

According to the said undertaking/declaration dated 21.7.2012, the deponent has declared that the entire amount of the supplementary bill in

question has already been paid. It is also declared that the deponent does not want to rely on the order dated 17.5.2011.

In view of the said undertaking/declaration dated 21.7.2012, Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner

has already received the entire amount of supplementary bill in question and on account of the said payment, the impugned order dated 17.5.2011

passed by the Electrical Inspector does not survive in effect. This is besides the fact that the respondent has, according to the petitioner, declared

that he does not want to rely on the said order. Since the deponent of said undertaking is not the petitioner, certain confusion has arisen in view of

the name of the deponent of the said undertaking/declaration dated 21.7.2012 in view of which, this court has earlier passed orders dated

19.6.2012, 23.7.2012 and 27.8.2012. Under the said orders, fresh process was directed to be issued to the concerned respondent. However,

until now, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the said respondent and the said respondent has also not attended the hearing of present

petition.

In this factual background, Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that in view of the said undertaking/declaration and the

fact that the entire amount under the supplementary bill has been paid, the petitioner does not want to prosecute present petition further and it is

requested that the petition may be disposed of as withdrawn, at this stage.

She also submitted that if any difficulty arises in connection with the impugned order dated 17.5.2012 from the side of the said deponent of the

undertaking/declaration dated 21.7.2012, then, the petitioner will take out appropriate application/proceedings seeking appropriate clarification

from the Court, however, at this stage, present petition may be disposed of as withdrawn.

Accordingly, in view of the said request by Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate for the petitioner, present petition is disposed of as withdrawn/not

pressed, at this stage.

Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier, stands vacated forthwith.