Gujarat High Court
M/S Mansi Reality Private Ltd vs Deputy Engineer(O And M) Dakshin ... on 6 February, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/408/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 408 of
2025
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33569 of 2024
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33569 of 2024
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12153 of 2018
==========================================================
M/S MANSI REALITY PRIVATE LTD
Versus
DEPUTY ENGINEER(O AND M) DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD &
ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS TARJANI K ANJARIA(12193) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 06/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is suffering from inordinate
unexplained delay of 1967 days.
2. A perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay
accompanying the instant Letters Patent Appeal indicates that the
appellant has tried to explain the delay by making a statement that it
was approaching different forums, such as Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum for redressal of its grievances. Dissatisfied with the
order passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum, the appellant had
approached the Electricity Ombudsman which had allowed the case
of the appellant by directing for refund of certain amounts, vide
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/408/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
order dated 18.11.2016. The original writ petition was preferred by
the respondent No.1 herein against the decision of the Electricity
Ombudsman and the same has been decided on 10.6.2019.
3. We may note from the averments made in the application
seeking condonation of delay that there is no explanation whatsoever
for the delay of 1967 days in filing of the instant appeal. The
contention of the appellant that it was approaching different legal
Fora and the time taken therein has to be condoned is wholly
misconceived, inasmuch as, the said eventuality was prior to the
disposal of the writ petition, vide judgment and order dated
10.6.2019.
4. A further explanation is forthcoming in para-6 of the
application that the appellant came to know that a group of Letters
Patent Appeals had been preferred on the similar issues and they
have been allowed by this Court. Apart from the vague assertions to
the above effect, there is no description nor any detail of the Letters
Patent Appeals or the order passed by this Court. Even otherwise, if
for a moment, the said contention of the appellant is accepted, the
appellant was not required to wait for the outcome of the other
matters. It was incumbent upon the appellant to file an appeal within
the time prescribed for the purpose.
5. We may also note that the assertion is made in para-6 of the
application that the appellant had given a notice dated 7.8.2024
demanding for refund on the basis of some orders passed by this
Court in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by other persons, stated
to be similarly situated persons. In our considered opinion, no parity
can be drawn from such persons when there was an order operating
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/408/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
against the petitioner with the passing of the judgment and order
dated 10.6.2019.
6. For the above, all the explanations sought to be given in the
application seeking condonation of delay are found to be
misconceived. The Civil Application seeking condonation of delay is
accordingly REJECTED. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal
stands DISMISSED.
7. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate, has put in appearance on
behalf of the respondent No.1.
Sd/-
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
OMKAR
