Judgment in Pet.68.2002 - GERC

Petn.No.68/2002may affect the prospects of the Civil suit and, therefore also, this applicationdeserves to be dismissed.[4] The petitions were kept for hearing on 15.3.2002 and the Commission had heardLearned Addl. Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi for some times and thereafterCommission ordered to issue notice to the GEB.[5] Thereafter the petitions were kept for hearing on 21.6.2002, but Ld. Counsel forthe applicant was not present and Ld. Counsel Mr.Nirav Majmudar made astatement that he shall be filing his appearance in these group of matters andmatter was adjourned.[6] Thereafter the petitions were kept for hearing on 3.9.2002. On that day, theLearned Counsel Mr.Nirav Majmudar, who appeared on behalf of GEB asked forsome time as the last opportunity for filing affidavit. Ld. Counsel Mr.RakeshGupta who appeared on behalf of M/s.Trivedi & Gupta for the petitioner, had noobjection for granting a reasonable period and therefore, time was granted.[7] Thereafter the petitions were kept for hearing on 18.9.2002 and on that date, asper the request of Mr.Hemant Gohedia, who was present on behalf of LearnedCounsel Mr.Nirav Majmudar, time was granted.[8] Thereafter the Commission suggested for amicable settlement but it could not bedone and therefore, the petition was kept for hearing on 25.2.2005. On that day,the Learned Advocate Shri Nirav Majmudar, representing GEB submitted that thematter is sub-judice as the petitioner had already approached the Hon’ble HighCourt of Gujarat on the same subject matter and the petitioner has also obtainedinterim order restraining the GEB from making adjustment in the bill. Therefore,petitioner should submit the correct position of the subject matter before theCommission. The Learned Advocate Shri Rakesh Gupta submitted that in fact, thePage 6 of 17