SOMNATH MINERALS Vs. PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Somnath Minerals and Chemicals - a Partnership firm is before this Court through its Partner - Mr. Jagdishbhai Chimanlal Shah, through his Power of Attorney - Shri Sanjay Rasiklal Mehta. The prayer made in this petition is that: 'the impugned order dated 28/7/2009, passed by the learned Ombudsman for Electricity, Gujarat in Case No. 7 of 2009 and order of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, PGVCL, Bhavnagar, passed in Case No. 63 of 2008 communicated to the petitioner vide covering letter dated 3/1/2009, be quashed and set aside'.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval M. Barot for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner cannot be denied a fresh connection only on the ground that there is an outstanding due to the tune of Rs.81 lakh of the electricity consumption against one Shri Padubha Gohil on the same premises.

(3.) 'Too much of ignorance' causes suspicion in the mind of the Court. The electricity connection was obtained in the year 1995 and that was continued up to 2002. Now, it is pleaded that the petitioner has no knowledge of any person having entered on the premises, is difficult to be believed. In fact, it is not possible for the Court to believe this. This 'plea of innocence' is found totally unacceptable and on that ground alone, the petition is thrown out. In the opinion of this Court, this amounts to 'non- disclosure' of the material fact to the Court. Assuming for the sake of argument that though a person entered in the premises of the petitioner and continued in possession for long seven years and the petitioner does not know about the same for all these years, then it is very dangerous. It is good that no 'anti-national activity' was carried on during that period, on that premises. It will be appropriate to remind ourself that the property in question is a plot, allotted by the GIDC to the petitioner. If the petitioner is having so many properties that he did not bother to take care after 1985, he may as well 'write off' that property. The plea advanced by the petitioner does not inspire any confidence. Because, at least, neighbour would have informed the petitioner about somebody being on the property of the petitioner. For long seven years, a person runs industry, consumes electricity and then disappears from the land and the petitioner is totally blank about the same. If that is so, the Court refuses to believe a bit of the story put forward by the petitioner. The petition cannot be entertained, particularly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where, the Court will always like to be sure of the bona fides of the petitioner, approaching under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.