Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. SILVER TON PAPERS LTD. ANDANOTHER versus PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. Silver Ton Papers Ltd. Andanother v. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Others - WRIT - C No. 78251 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 8087 (23 December 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.78251 of 2005

M/s. Silverton Papers Ltd. & Anr.

Versus

Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

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

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

The grievance raised in this petition is that tapping from the independent feeder of the petitioners cannot be done  except as provided under Clause 3.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. It has been stated in the petition that one unit namely M/s. Adarsh Paiper Fabrik Ltd., which has been arrayed as respondent no. 4 in this petition submitted an application before the respondent Power Corporation seeking enhancement of the load from the petitioners' independent feeder and the respondents, in contravention of the provisions of Clause 3.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, have granted sanction to the tapping of the independent feeder of the petitioner.

We have heard Shri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mayank Agarwal, for the petitioner and Shri W.H. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

Shri Sharma, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the tapping of the independent feeder can be permitted by licensee to other connection having a similar process subject to the various conditions provided in the Code, 2005 and one of conditions is that the consent of original consumer by the prospective consumer for cost sharing of common portion of feeder with the prospective consumer is required.  According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner never gave his consent and, therefore, the sanction could not have been granted by the Power Corporation.

Shri W.H. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Power Corporation shall re-examine the issue provided the petitioners submit an application before the respondent no.1.

In view of the aforesaid statement made by Shri Khan, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction that in the event the petitioners file a proper application before the respondent no.1, ventilating all the grievances sought to be raised in the present petition, the respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and M/s. Adarsh Paiper Fabrik Ltd. but till such time as the application is not disposed of, the connection shall not be given to M/s. M/s. Adarsh Paiper Fabrik Ltd. from the independent feeder of the petitioner, unless the petitioner had given the consent in writing.

23.12.2005/AHA


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.