Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJ ICE FACTORY versus U.P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raj Ice Factory v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited And Others - WRIT - C No. 13394 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5778 (9 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

We have heard Ms. Vinasha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the averments made in the writ petition.

The petitioner claims to be a Seasonal Industry. The grievance raised in the petition is that the respondents have issued certain bills for the months of November and December, 2005 and January and February, 2006 without treating the petitioner Industry as a Seasonal Industry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the tariff applicable to the Seasonal Industry could only have been charged by the respondent Corporation.

Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents Corporation has placed before us the Rate Schedule of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited framed by U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission and in particular to clause 7 retaining to LMV Schedule (vi) category which provides that if the consumer's demand exceeds 30% of the contracted load in any month during the period of ''Off Season' he will be denied the benefit of ''seasonal industry' during that season and will be charged as per normal tariff.

The dispute centers round the fact whether the demand of the contracted load in any month during the ''Off Season' exceeds 30% of the contracted amount. This is a factual dispute and it may not be possible for us to decide it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, stated that the petitioner has already submitted a representation for the aforesaid relief before the Executive Engineer, EUDD-IV Pashimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vashundhara, Ghaziabad-respondent No.3 which is pending disposal.

Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has stated that the said representation shall be decided expeditiously and in case it is allowed, the bills issued to the petitioner shall be corrected accordingly.

In view of the aforesaid statement made by Sri W.H. Khan, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders on the representation filed by the petitioner expeditiously within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the said respondent.

Dt/-9.3.2006

Sharma/13394


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.