MEHUL CHINUBHAI PATEL Vs. VISHNUBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner is having share to the extent of 50% in the partnership firm, the authorities are not considering the request for disconnecting the electricity supply of the partnership firm. For that purpose, the petitioner approached the authority, but according to learned advocate Mr. Sandeep Limbani, the authority has not considered the material issues which were placed before it. It has been submitted that if in future, any liability may crop up on account of mishandling by other partners, same would be fastened upon the petitioner and as a result of this, the request ought to have been considered. The authority has not considered the contentions which have been raised before it and has passed an order on 15.2.2021, ignoring the share of the petitioner in the firm as well as the possible eventuality, which is already projected before it. It is only because of the other partners raising objection against disconnection, the authority has passed an order and therefore, the very exercise of power is ill-founded and as a result of this, the order in question deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the reasons are not properly assigned by the authority while passing the order on 15.2.2021. No other submissions have been made.

(3.) As against the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Rushabh Shah, who has filed caveat on behalf of some of the contesting respondents and is filing appearance, has contended that the issue involved is of inter-se conflict between the partners and appropriate forum is already availed of by the petitioner and the other partners for redressal of the grievance. He has submitted that arbitration proceedings are pending before the Arbitrator, in which an application for seeking interim measures under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act has already been submitted by the petitioner, but that fact has not been brought to the notice of this Court and therefore, the petition suffers from vice of suppression of material fact and therefore, no equitable jurisdiction be exercised in favour of the petitioner. In addition thereto, it has been pointed out that one suit, being Civil Suit No.74 of 2019, has also been filed in the Civil Court at Dehgam and the same is stated to be pending. In that view of the matter, it has been submitted that when a firm is going concern and the other majority partners are already objecting against disconnection, it is not open for the petitioner to precipitate this action of disconnection of electricity. In any case, the Ombudsman authority has taken into consideration all minute details and the grievance raised before it and thereafter, passed the order and as such, in absence of any illegality or perversity, there is hardly any reason for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The conduct of the petitioner itself is self-explanatory. In that view of the matter, Mr. Shah has submitted that no case is made out by the petitioner and hence, the petition is required to be dismissed.