Gujarat High Court
Aarvee Denims And Exports Ltd vs Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd & 2 on 6 January, 2014
Author: Vijay Manohar Sahai
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, K.J.Thaker
C/LPA/1483/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1483 of 2013
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 464 of 2013
=========================================
AARVEE DENIMS AND EXPORTS LTD....Appellant
Versus
UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD & 2....Respondents
=========================================
Appearance :
MR S N SOPARKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR ASHISHKUMAR A
JHA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant.
MR KAMAL B TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL ASSISTED BY MR PREMAL R
JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent.
=========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 06/01/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashishkumar A. Jha for the appellant and Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the respondents.
2. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.
3. The question that arises for consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is about the interpretation of the Clause 4.1.17 of the Electric Supply Code, 2005 which provides that the Distribution Licensee shall not provide more than one connection / meter for one premise. Where subsequently, if the consumer purchases another premise which is adjacent to it, whether it can be termed as one premises or two different premises, though earlier, the Distribution Licensee has provided Page 1 of 2 C/LPA/1483/2013 ORDER two different electric connections to both the premises.
Prima facie, it appears to us that both the premises are different though the consumer is one and, therefore, in our prima facie opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that since the consumer is one, the adjoining premise has to be clubbed as one premise, appears to be erroneous.
In this view of the matter, the appellant is entitled for the interim relief.
Hence, the appeal is admitted. Until further orders of the Court, the effect and operation of the judgment dated 12.8.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.464 of 2013 shall remain stayed.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J.) Savariya Page 2 of 2