JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. M/s. Somnath Minerals and Chemicals - a Partnership firm is before this Court through its Partner Mr. Jagdishbhai Chimanlal Shah, through his Power of Attorney Shri Sanjay Rasiklal Mehta. The prayer made in this petition is that: 'the impugned order dated 28/7/2009, passed by the learned Ombudsman for Electricity, Gujarat in Case No. 7 of 2009 and order of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, PGVCL, Bhavnagar, passed in Case No. 63 of 2008 communicated to the petitioner vide covering letter dated 3/1/2009, be quashed and set aside'. 2.0 Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval M. Barot for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner cannot be denied a fresh connection only on the ground that there is an outstanding due to the tune of Rs. 81 lakh of the electricity consumption against one Shri Padubha Gohil on the same premises. 2.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1975, there was an electricity connection on the premises in question, which continued right up to 1985. In 1985, as the business was closed, the electricity connection was surrendered to the company. Later on, in the year 1995, one Padubha Gohil obtained an electricity connection and continued to enjoy the same up to 2002. But thereafter, he stopped paying the electricity consumption charges. 2.2 For recovery of arrears (electricity consumption charges), the electricity company had to file a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 42 of 2004, which came to be decreed. It appears from the papers that, there is a decree for Rs. 81 lakh and odd against Shri Padubha Gohil. In 2008, the petitioner decided to start business again in the same premises and therefore, they applied for the electricity connection. The same is denied by the electricity company on the ground that there are arrears of the electricity consumption charges and until the same are paid, new electricity connection cannot be granted. 2.3 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that he does not know anything about said Shri Padubha Gohil. He does not know that ever, any such person, had taken electricity connection in his premises and has consumed electricity on the said premises. 3.0 'Too much of ignorance' causes suspicion in the mind of the Court. The electricity connection was obtained in the year 1995 and that was continued up to 2002. He does not know that ever, any such person, had taken electricity connection in his premises and has consumed electricity on the said premises. 3.0 'Too much of ignorance' causes suspicion in the mind of the Court. The electricity connection was obtained in the year 1995 and that was continued up to 2002. Now, it is pleaded that the petitioner has no knowledge of any person having entered on the premises, is difficult to be believed. In fact, it is not possible for the Court to believe this. This 'plea of innocence' is found totally unacceptable and on that ground alone, the petition is thrown out. In the opinion of this Court, this amounts to 'nondisclosure' of the material fact to the Court. Assuming for the sake of argument that though a person entered in the premises of the petitioner and continued in possession for long seven years and the petitioner does not know about the same for all these years, then it is very dangerous. It is good that no 'anti national activity' was carried on during that period, on that premises. It will be appropriate to remind our self that the property in question is a plot, allotted by the GIDC to the petitioner. If the petitioner is having so many properties that he did not bother to take care after 1985, he may as well 'write off' that property. The plea advanced by the petitioner does not inspire any confidence. Because, at least, neighbour would have informed the petitioner about somebody being on the property of the petitioner. For long seven years, a person runs industry, consumes electricity and then disappears from the land and the petitioner is totally blank about the same. If that is so, the Court refuses to believe a bit of the story put forward by the petitioner. The petition cannot be entertained, particularly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where, the Court will always like to be sure of the bona fides of the petitioner, approaching under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.1 The petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. 3.2 The Court restrains itself from imposing any cost on the petitioner. Petition dismissed.