Allowed

Hari Ballabh Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2020WRIC/4765/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that pendency of a civil suit does not bar consideration of a writ petition seeking a new electricity connection. The petitioner was directed to grant the connection under the Electricity Act, 2003 and Electricity Supply Code, 2005 within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider application for electricity connection within four weeks of receipt of this order in accordance with Electricity Act, 2003.

Hari Ballabh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4765 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Hari Ballabh Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Agarawal,Vishesh Rajvanshi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 14.1.2020 which is nothing but a reiteration of the order dated 6.9.2019 passed by the Executive Engineer, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited Khand, Chitrakoot.

¶7

The record reveals that a Writ Petition No. 32792 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider his application for new electricity connection. In the said petition, the objection had been taken by the learned counsel for the respondent therein that the prayer of the petitioner had already been adjudicated by the order dated 6.9.2019. Since, the petitioner did not assail the said order, the writ petition was dismissed as misconceived. Another Writ-C No. 38064 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6.9.2019 which has been dismissed being barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Principles of res judicata). The Court has opined that since the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 6.9.2019, at the earliest opportunity the challenge to the said order at the later stage cannot be maintained.

¶8

We may further record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the case. The order impugned states that the request of the petitioner for grant of electricity connection in the premises in question cannot be considered in view of the pendency of the civil suit namely Original Suit No. 9 of 2018 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Carvy, Chitrakoot which has been instituted by the respondent no. 4.

¶9

The plaint of the suit is not on record. However, a perusal of the order of the first appellate court indicates that the said suit has been filed for relief of permanent injunction against the

¶10

petitioner herein. The interim injunction application has been rejected by the trial court and the appeal has also been dismissed.

¶11

The pendency of the said suit, in our opinion, should not come in the way for consideration of the application of the petitioner. The respondent, namely, the Executive Engineer, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited Khand, Chitrakoot is, therefore, under obligation to consider the request of the petitioner for grant of the electricity connection in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Fresh consideration shall be given and an expeditious decision in accordance with the law shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.11.2020 A. V. Singh

Hari Ballabh Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ballabh Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Usha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sharfuddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Parwaj Jan Kalyan Samiti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sachin Bansal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajeev Chaddha Vs State of U P and 3 Others