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.
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
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
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
