Disposed

Subhash Chander Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2019WRIC/26108/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondent utility to grant a 3HP electricity connection at a price equal to that of similarly situated villagers. The court held the petitioner must approach the higher authority under the U.P. Supply Code regarding the cost estimate and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation under Clause 4.6(F) of U.P. Supply Code, 2005 within two weeks for consideration by higher authority within four weeks.

Subhash Chander Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26108 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Subhash Chander Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chander Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Deepak Dubey holding brief of Sri S. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri F. A. Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking relief in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.3 to grant 3HP electricity connection to the petitioner as similarly other three villagers have been granted connection at a cost of Rs.3,372/-. It, therefore, transpires that the petitioner is aggrieved against the estimated cost of Rs.88,000/- and odd and, therefore, he claims equality in terms of right of the petitioner to get electricity connection at due price.

¶7

Countering the above submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that if petitioner is aggrieved with the estimated cost then he can approach the higher authority for redressal of his grievance under Clause 4.6(F) of the U.P. Supply Code, 2005. To the above legal position learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute.

¶8

In view of the above, therefore, we dispose of this petition with a direction that in case if the petitioner files his representation/objection before the higher authority as contemplate under Clause 4.6(F) of the U.P. Supply Code, 2005 within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks by reasoned and speaking order.

¶9

Order Date :- 20.8.2019 Nitin Verma

¶10

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Subhash Chander Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chander Dwivedi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S N Kay Refractory Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 4 Others

Amit Kumar Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Rajesh Tuli Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Abdul Mazid Khan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohammad Mobin @ Mobin Mohammad Vs U.P. Pwoer Corp. Ltd. and Others

Shashi Prabha Vs State of U.P. and Others