Remanded

Dinesh Singh Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023WRIC/2733/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought restoration of an electricity connection disputed by a co-owner. Finding the respondents absent, the court directed the electricity department to examine the grievance after hearing both parties and passing a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a fresh representation; Respondent No. 2 directed to hear both parties and pass a speaking order within six weeks.

Dinesh Singh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138794-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2733 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Dinesh Singh Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh,Rajesh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent-Electricity Department to restore electric connection No.0625/003251 (771713319330) and continue electric supply to the petitioner from the said electric connection.

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid electricity connection was in the name of his father, Kadam Singh, who died on 21.12.2001. The petitioner after the death of his father was continuously paying electricity bills. It is also his case that previously the aforesaid connection was bearing Connection No.0625/003251. The dispute arose when the aforesaid electricity connection was transferred in the name of private respondent no.4 by order dated 6.2.2019. The order itself recites that in case of any objection by co-tenure holder, the order transferring connection in name of the private respondent would stand automatically cancelled. It seems that at that stage, the petitioner did not raise any objection. Ultimately on an application filed by respondent no.4 on 10.10.2019, the supply was directed to be disconnected by order dated 19.10.2019. On 14.10.2019 the petitioner made a representation to resume electricity supply and his name be substituted in place of his

¶8

father.

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that the private tube-well of the petitioner is installed over Gata No.210 and it does not belong to respondent no.4, who is stated to have purchased the adjoining land.

¶10

This Court while entertaining the writ petition granted time to the respondents to file counter affidavit, which has not been filed till date, nor anyone is present for the respondents even in revised call.

¶11

Having regard to the nature of controversy, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be served in directing respondent no.2 to examine the grievance of the petitioner and pass a speaking order after hearing both the parties.

¶12

Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with true attested copy of the instant order before respondent no.2. On receipt of the representation, respondent no.2 will issue notice to respondent no.4 as well as the petitioner fixing a date for hearing and, thereafter, pass a speaking order within next six weeks.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.7.2023 S. Singh

¶14

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Singh Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Singh Chaudhary 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

Satish Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sohanvir Vali and 25 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajeev Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Raj Kishore Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ghanshyam Das Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others