High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 12 GUJ CK 0194

Hemendra U. Mehta vs Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited and Another

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 6 December 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 10249 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 332 words

Akil Kureshi, J.—The Petitioner is consumer of electricity. He had initially applied for temporary connection by depositing Rs. 25,000/-with the Respondent electricity company. Later on he deposited another sum of Rs. 31,215/-and obtained permanent connection. It is the case of the Petitioner and with respect to which there is no dispute that Petitioner had always paid the periodic bills raised by the electricity company.

2.

Despitethis on 11.10.2002, Petitioner received a communication from electricity company that amount of Rs. 40,203.17 is outstanding due and payable which should be paid within ten days. Petitioner replied to the said notice and denied his liability. Since he did not pay the said amount, his connection was disconnected. He received another communication dated 13.3.2003 asking him to pay Rs. 17,658/-for reconnecting the electricity supply. The Petitioner under protest paid the amount. Respondents however, sent another communication dated 2.6.2003 and reiterated the demand of Rs. 42.903.17

3.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had always paid all the bills. Demand raised by the Respondent electricity company was therefore, unjust. No calculation or reasons were indicated asking for said amount.

4.

On the other hand, counsel for the electricity company stated that there was duplication of the bills and ultimately, the demand has been reduced to Rs. 9729/-.

5.

From the above, it can be seen that entire dispute has now narrowed down to additional demand of Rs. 9729/-by the electricity company. For this demand also, no figure or data are given. It is not stated how if the Petitioner had paid all the bills in past, he was still required to pay some more amount to the electricity company. Such belated attempt without any basis or material in support of charges cannot be accepted.

6.

In the result petition is allowed by quashing entire demand of Rs. 42.903.17. Amount of Rs. 17.658/-paid by the Petitioner previously will be given credit to for future bills of the Petitioner.

7 Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute.