Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PHOOL CHAND versus SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH, E.E., PURVANCHAL POWER DIS. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Phool Chand v. Surendra Pratap Singh, E.E., Purvanchal Power Dis. & Others - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 2119 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10943 (2 July 2007)

 

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'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Heard Sri B. B. Paul, Advocate.

The contention of the petitioner is that despite the direction being issued by this Court vide order dated 23.02.1998 in Writ Petition no. 28219 of 1997 Phool Chand Versus State of U. P. and others, the representation of the petitioner has not yet been decided which was directed to be decided within three weeks.  In paragraph 15 of the petition, it is, stated that the Certified copy of the order dated 23.02.1998 alongwith the representation dated 13.8.1997 has been filed before the Executive Engineer, Electricity Division-2, U. P. State Electricity Board, Ghazipur vide application dated 11.3.1998.  In this way, the copy of the impugned order has been brought to the notice of the authorities concerned in the month of March, 1998 itself.  It also appears that the petitioner has filed another Writ Petition challenging the recovery and for direction to comply with the earlier order by way of Writ Petition no. 42809 of 1998.  The said writ petition has been dismissed on 07.05.2007 by observing that for non compliance of the order, the petitioner should have approached the Contempt Court.  It has been further observed that the petitioner is raising the same dispute regarding the electricity connection from 1986 and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has deposited any amount.  

I do not see any sufficient ground for the delay in approaching this Court by filing the present petition when the order dated 23.02.1998 has been admittedly brought to the notice of the respondent on 11.3.1998, therefore, the present petition is highly belated.

In the circumstances, the present petition is dismissed.

Dt:02.07.2007.

MZ/2119/07.


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.