Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mohd. Qasim & Another v. Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others - WRIT - C No. 62886 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3794 (30 September 2005)


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).


Court No.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.62886 of 2005

Mohd. Qasim & another ..............................Petitioners


Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Meerut through Upkhand Adhikari (Dwitiya),

Vidyut Nagriya Vitran Khand Pratham, Moradabad.....Respondents


Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble (Mrs.) M. Chaudhary, J.

A provisional assessment was made against the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter preferred  two representations dated 25.4.2005 and 30.6.2005 but the same were not decided.  Petitioners  approached this Court   by filing  civil misc. Writ petition no.51958 of 2005 which was disposed of  vide judgment and order dated 26.7.2005.  This Court had directed the respondent no.4 i.e. Executive Engineer, Vidyut Nagriya Vitran Khand Pratham, Moradabad   to dispose of the said representations expeditiously, preferably within  15 days  after the deposit of Rs.50,000.00.  Pursuant to the  direction given  by this Court  vide judgment and order dated 26.7.2005, the petitioners deposited  a sum of Rs.50,000.00 and also  approached the respondent no.4 for deciding  the said  two representations.  The respondent no. 4 vide                                      impugned order dated 31.8.2005 had disposed of the representation dated 25.4.2005.  Other representation dated 30.6.2005 has not been disposed of  as it was not available  in his office  and the petitioners have been asked to furnish a copy of the said representation. Shri Deepak Jaiswal, learned counsel for the   petitioners  submits that  the petitioners have filed  copy of the representation dated 30.6.2005 on 12.9.2005.

So far as the order dated 31.8.2005 is concerned, it is an order in purported exercise  of power under Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as the same has been passed  after  provisional bill was raised and the petitioners have filed  their objection.  The appeal lies under Section 127 of the Electricity Act before  appropriate Authority.  The petitioners are directed to  prefer an appeal and  avail of the remedy  provided under Section 127 of the  said Act.  In so far as not deciding  the representation dated 30.6.2005 is concerned, we direct the respondent no.4 to decide the same within two weeks from the date  a certified copy of this order  alongwith copy of the  said representation is  filed before  him

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.




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


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 |

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