GITAR LABORATORIES Vs. AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The Gitar Laboratories, a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932, at Ahmedabad, by this petition challenges two bills dated 12-8-1989 (demand notices) raised by the respondent for Rs. 67,827-60 and Rs. 1,03,751-36 in aggregate Rs. 1,71,578-96 against the petitioner. This claim has been raised by the respondent-company for electricity charges against the petitioner during which period the meter installed at the petitioner-establishment recording the electricity consumption remain dead i.e., it did not record any consumption at all during that period.

(2.) . Learned Counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that it is not a case of malpractice or divergence of energy or theft of electricity or interference with the meter. It is a plain and simple case where the meter stopped reading consumption and this demand has been raised. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that the respondent acted very fairly and whatever relaxation could have been given from the demand raised, it has been given to the petitioner and then this final demand has been raised. The respondent filed detailed reply to the special civil application and in which a preliminary objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the respondent- company is a company registered under the Provisions of Companies Act in a private sector, and it is not State or Agency of State or instrumentality of State within the meaning of Art. 12 of Constitution of India, and it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) . I do not find on the record of this special civil application any rejoinder to reply has been filed. It is also not the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that rejoinder to reply has been filed by the petitioner. So the petitioner has not controverted the ground raised by the respondent in reply that the respondent-Company is not a State or instrumentality of State or agency of State and it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has not by filing rejoinder to reply shown how this Company is a State or agency of State or instrumentality of State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution and this petition is maintainable. If we go by the petition, I do not find anything therein even where the petitioner whisper that the respondent- company is a State within the meaning of Art, 12 of the Constitution and this petition is maintainable before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.