Disposed

Cma Cgm Logistics Park (Dadri) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018WRIC/34636/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench discretionary order observing that the petitioner had filed a pending case before the lower Consumer Forum which it was expedited to decide within one month, with liberty to raise objections to the disconnection notice before that forum.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to decide the pending Case No.39-C of 2018 within one month; liberty granted to raise objections to the disconnection notice before respondent No.4.

Cma Cgm Logistics Park (Dadri) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34636 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Cma Cgm Logistics Park (Dadri) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amrendra Nath Singh,Tarun Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Swarnendu Chatterjee, Advocate along with Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri Mata Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Gaurang Saxena holding brief of Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶6

On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF), 33/11 KV Sub Station, D-Block, Sector-Alpha I, Greater NOIDA is permitted to be impleaded as respondent No.4.

¶7

Necessary correction in the array of parties be carried out during course of the day.

¶8

On being confronted with the relief No.(C) of the writ petition to declare Regulation No.6.10 of CGRF Regulation, 2007 for which the jurisdiction is not assigned to this Bench and therefore, the writ petition may be placed before the appropriate Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not pressing the relief No. (C). He submits that the writ petition may heard on other points. Considering the statement and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, we have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Facts in brief are that aggrieved with the orders dated 29.06.2018 and 24.09.2018 passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. By order dated 29.06.2018 the show cause notice dated 17.04.2018 has been adjudicated and it has been apprised that if it is not satisfied with the order then it may contest the same before the respondent No.4. The order dated 24.09.2018 is, in fact, a notice for disconnection given by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner on the ground of non payment of dues of Rs.65,98,306/-.

¶10

It is admitted before us by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed Case No.39-C of 2018 before the respondent No.4 to challenge the impugned order

¶11

dated 29.06.2018 which is pending.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid Case No.39-C of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.4 which may be directed to be decided within a time bound period and till then the notice dated 24.09.2018 may not be given effect to.

¶13

Learned counsels for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit that they have no objection for a direction to the respondent No.4 to decide the aforesaid Case No.39-C of 2018 within a time bound period. However, they jointly submitted that the disconnection notice cannot be stayed or set aside by this Court once the matter itself is pending before the respondent No.4. They submit that the petitioner may raise his grievances before the respondent No.4 even against the disconnection notice dated 24.09.2018.

¶14

We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

We find that undisputedly the petitioner has filed Case No.39-C of 2018 before the respondent No.4 under para 6 of the U.P. ERC (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Electricity Ombudsman) Regulation, 2007, which is pending and in which pleadings have been exchanged. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, we direct the respondent No.4 to decide the aforesaid Case No.39-C of 2018 in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

So far as the second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise his objection before the respondent No.4 against the notice dated 24.09.2018. It is expected that if such objection is raised, the respondent No.4 shall consider it in accordance with law.

¶17

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.10.2018 Nitin Verma

Cma Cgm Logistics Park (Dadri) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cma Cgm Logistics Park (Dadri) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shabana Aftab Vs State Bank of India and 4 Others

Dilip Dhameja Vs Bank of Baroda Govind Nagar Kanpur Nagar and Another

Smt. Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Mainpuri and Ors.

Pradeep Garg Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dheer Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others