Gujarat High Court
Navghanbhai Lilabhai Dasa vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1139/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1139 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20225 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1139 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1139 of 2025
==========================================================
NAVGHANBHAI LILABHAI DASA & ORS.
Versus
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED (PGVCL) & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY):-
Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1. No objection to the delay condonation application has been filed by the learned advocate for the respondent no.1.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 21:38:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1139/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined The delay of 87 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Registry shall allot the regular number to the Letters Patent Appeal, forthwith. ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL:-
1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record, we find that in view of the statement made by the petitioner in affidavit dated 30.03.2022 filed before the writ court that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the amount determined by the Electricity Department in installment and the respondent authority be directed to accept the amount in installment, there is no good ground to entertain the present appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the premise that there were two supplementary bills issued at different point of time.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 21:38:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1139/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined based on the averments made before the learned Single Judge as noted in paragraph-6 of the judgment impugned that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs.28 lakhs and odd, which was the first supplementary bill, cannot be appreciated for the simple reason that it was case of the theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the petitioner has failed to explain his conduct. As the learned Single Judge has rightly recorded that the petitioner has indulged in malpractices and it is the clear case of the electricity theft, he is required to deposit the entire amount of Rs.49 lakh and odd with compounding charges as determined by the department, and only in case, he makes necessary deposits, the electricity connection be restored.
3. We may note that in case of theft of the electricity, the computations are to be made as per the formula provided under the Electricity Code framed under the Electricity Act, 2003. No dispute could be raised about the computation made by the respondent - department before the writ court or before us.
4. The submission is that the petitioner is liable to make Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 21:38:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1139/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined payment only against the first bill, which was never issued by the competent authority and somehow was received by the petitioner, cannot be a reason to attach illegality to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. For the above, no interference is called for. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
Consequently, the Civil Application for Stay would not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 13 21:38:06 IST 2025