Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA KUMAR versus U.P.S.E.B. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajendra Kumar v. U.P.S.E.B. & Another - WRIT - C No. 11113 of 1998 [2007] RD-AH 12371 (19 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

"Court No.10"

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11113 of 1998.

Rajendra Kumar

Versus

U.P. State Electricity Board and another.

...............

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.

By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

"A. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the circular dated 28.3.1989 (Annexure VIII to the writ petition);

B. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to produce the circular dated 7.10.1994 and to quash the same, and the notice dated 25.11.1997 (Annexure III to the writ petition) and the notice dated 28.2.1998 (Annexure VII to the writ petition);

C. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electric supply of the petitioner or to take any coercive measures against the petitioner in this regard;

D. to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has applied for and sanctioned an electric connection of 48 KVA for building in question and since then electric charges is being paid regularly by him.  Thereafter respondents issued a notice to the petitioner informing to pay the cost of transformer, which shall be installed because of increase of electric consumption of 125 KVA. The petitioner denied this fact and stated that it is wholly arbitrary.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

To us it appears that this controversy can very appropriately be dealt with in case the petitioner approaches before the arbitrator.  Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in view of failing of the writ petition, even if the petitioner approaches before the arbitrator under the orders of this Court, the respondents will disconnect the electric connection.  We are not convinced with the aforesaid apprehension of the petitioner.  We direct that in case the petitioner files an application for interim stay before the arbitrator, the same shall be decided by him expeditiously in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid direction, without entering into the merits or otherwise of the petitioner's case, this writ petition is dismissed.  The interim order, if any, stands vacated.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dated: 19.07.2007.

Rks.


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.