Disposed

Girandra Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021WRIC/24583/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's pending representation regarding the installation of an electric tower on his land and decide it within six weeks, rejecting the claim for immediate injunction against installation which must await the outcome of the representation process.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 5 to decide the pending representation dated 12.3.2020 within six weeks.

Girandra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24583 of 2020 Petitioner :- Girandra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devashish Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bidhan Chandra Rai Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶2

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Managing Director, Power Corporation, U.P. Lucknow as respondent no.6.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 5, learned counsel Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi representing the respondent no.6 and Shri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4.

¶4

The instant petition has been filed with the following relief:

¶5

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the authority concern to do not to set Tower no.103 in the petitioner's Bhumidhari Bhumi Khasra No.557 situated in village Patan Karkha (Shikohabad), Tehsil Sirsaganj, District Firozabad;

¶6

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to decide the representation dated 13.2.2020 of the petitioner which is pending before the respondent authority within stipulated period;

¶7

III. Issue any other direction protecting the interest of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper the facts and circumstances of the case;

¶8

IV. Allow this writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Power Corporation that as the installation of the electric transmission lines is being carried out in exercise of power under Section 67(d) by transmission licensee who is authorized to operate with the approval of the State Government. He further submits that in case the petitioner has any grievance he may file representation to the concerned authority in respect of which the compensation has been provided under Section 67(3) read with Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to which learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 12.3.2020 is pending before the respondent no.5 which has been annexed as Annexure4 to the writ petition, but the same is pending for consideration.

¶10

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the respondent no.5 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and decide his representation dated 12.3.2020 strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order produced before him.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.1.2021 M. Tariq

Girandra Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girandra Singh 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

Ram Kishore Verma Vs District Magistrate and 2 Others

M/S Singh Rice Mills Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Zaheer Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U P and 5 Others

M/S Star Loh and Kastha Kala Udyog and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Makhan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others