Disposed

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2019WRIC/27598/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing a District/Subordinate Judicial/Magistrate/Executive Engineering respondent to process and decide a petitioners application for a new electricity connection, dismissing delays.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the application for grant of new electricity connection and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27598 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Chandra Gupta,Purti Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar

¶4

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

¶5

We heard Ms. Purti Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 namely the Executive Engineer to give electricity connection to the petitioner.

¶7

According to the pleadings, as have been raised in the present writ petition, the petitioner applied for a new electricity connection on 10.07.2019. However, he submits, till date no action has been taken for grant of electricity connection to him. He also claims to be a physically challenged person with 70% disability.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn our attention to the relevant provisions as contained under Chapter IV of U.P. Supply Code, 2005.

¶9

We have gone through the relevant provisions as contained under Chapter IV, particularly clauses 4.1, 4,3 and 4.4 which cast obligation upon the licensee namely the respondents herein, to consider the application of the petitioner for new electricity connection and if otherwise there is no legal impediment, to ensure that electricity connection is granted speedily within a month.

¶10

We find no justification, therefore, for inaction on part of the respondents to linger on the matter and not to take any decision either to grant electricity connection or to refuse the same for the reasons to be accorded.

¶11

In such view of the matter, we are disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of new electricity connection and pass a reasoned and speaking order, either way,

¶12

positively within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 22.8.2019 IrfanUddin

¶15

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

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 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 the National Auto Supply Company Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and 2 Others

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and Others

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

Shyam Sundar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Tabish Vs District Magistrate Saharanpur and 2 Others

Madhupati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others