The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order and issuance of mandamus, holding that an alternative remedy was available under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2384 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohammad Azam Khan Respondent :- The Managing Director Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5.
This writ petition has been filed seeking following prayers:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 passed by respondent no. 2. (Annexure No. 5).
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 not to adopt any coercive measure against the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection by contending that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 13426 of 2020 which was disposed of on 8.9.2020 with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioner's representation by speaking and reasoned order. In pursuance whereof, the petitioner had approached before the respondent-authority who has passed an order on 14.10.2020. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach before Tribunal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. Hence, the instant writ petition may not be entertained.
Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties on account of availability of alternative remedy, we are not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 28.1.2021 Saurabh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be entertained given the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.
Whether the Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mohammad Azam Khan
The Managing Director Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam
And 4 Others
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
