HOTEL NATRAJ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these ten identical petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hoteliers of Ahmedabad, have challenged the recovery of electricity charges by Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. respondent No. 2 in each of the petitions under various heads of fixed charges, fuel surcharge, and electricity duty.

(2.) After the petitions were admitted, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners was elevated as a Judge of this High Court and so a personal notice to each of the petitioner was issued, but none of the petitioners has chosen to appear either personally or through any other Advocate at the time of final hearing. Thus, none of the petitioners appears to be interested in getting a decision of this Court on the various contentions raised by him. Special C. A. No. 1714 of 1984 was filed by Official Receiver of Messrs Kwality Restaurant and the notice returned back unserved with the remark "the said Restaurant has been closed since long". Similarly, a notice to the petitioner Ritz Hotel in Spl. C. A. No. 1763 of 1984 has also returned unserved with the remark that the hotel building had been demolished and the land is covered in Municipal compound. So instead of dismissing the petitions for default, this Court has taken sufficient care to go through the petitions and to apply its mind to each of the contentions raised by the petitioners with the able assistance of Mr. H. B. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. T. H. Sompura for respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat, who relied on a few judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court for facilitating the disposal of these petitions.

(3.) As the petitions are couched in indentical language, and most of them are cyclostyled, the indentical contentions raised in these petitions are required to be disposed of by a common judgment.