Disposed

M/s Janta Industries Village Singarpur, District Rajnandgaon, v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Nov 2017WPC/311/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court issued interim order directing State Power Distribution Company to consider petitioner's representation against additional electricity demand within 45 days while hearing statutory rights were denied earlier.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondents to consider pending representation within 45 days with hearing; interim order remains operative.

M/s Janta Industries Village Singarpur, District… — Consumer Protection | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (C) No. 311 of 20 09

¶5

M/s Janta Industries, Village Singarpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon, through its Partner Ashish Baid, S/o Ashok Chand Baid, Baspaipara, Durga Talkies Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (C.S.P.D.C.L.), Through its Secretary, Central Office of C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Executive Director (O&M), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (C.S.P.D.C.L.), Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Chief Engineer (Commercial), C.S.P.D.C.L. Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

The Chief Engineer, (RJN-R), Rajnandgaon.

¶12

Superintending Engineer (O&M), C.S.P.D.C.L., Rajnandgaon Circle, Rajnandgaon.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioners: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

0 7 / 11/2017

¶18

(1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has alrady desposited the supply affording charges as per sanction letter dated 9.10.2007 but the additional demand of Rs.23,95,192/- has been made from him without affording due opportunity of hearing to him, which is per se illegal and bad in law and, for which he has already made representation to the respondent authorites but the same has not been considered and decided till date, therefore, the same may be directed to be

¶19

¶20

decided expeditiously.

¶21

(3) Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's representation will be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶22

(4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.

¶23

(5) Be that as it may, the respondents authorites are directed to consider petitioner's representation objecting additional demand, which is pending consideration expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶24

(6) For the period of 45 days, interim order dated 19.1.2009 shall remain in operative.

¶25

(7) With the aforesaid directions, instant writ petition stands finally dispoed of.

¶26

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶27

D/-

¶28

¶29

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶30

D/-

M/s Janta Industries Village Singarpur, District Rajnandgaon, v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Janta Industries Village Singarpur, District Rajnandgaon, v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Rice Mill Vs C.G. State Electricity Board and Ors.

M/S Mahamaya Agrotech Vs C.G. State Electricity Board and Ors.

Banke Bihari Rice Mill Vs C.G. State Electricity Board and Ors.

Central Bank of India Vs Smt. Usha Devi Agrawal and Ors.

C.G. State Elelctricity Board Vs C.G. Human Rights Commission and 3 Ors.

Mrs.Mani Sharma Vs Maharshi Shikshan Sansthan and Ors.