Disposed

Umiya Board And Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. C.g. State Power Distri. Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Nov 2024WPC/1826/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition arising from a power supply dispute. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 and directed respondent authorities to decide the matter on merits within three months, disregarding technical objections or limitation arguments due to the long pendency of the grievance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003; Respondents directed to decide on merits within three months without technical grounds.

Umiya Board And Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.g… — Banking and Recovery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:43456

¶3

Date: VISHAKHA 2024.11.08 BEOHAR 10:59:48 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1826 of 2013

¶7

1 - Umiya Board And Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. A Company Incorporate Situate At New Timber Market, P.S. Ganj, Fafadih, Raipur 492009 Through Director Narayan Bhai Patel, 57 Yrs., S/o Vasta Bhai Patel, New Timber Market, P.S. Ganj, Fafadih, Raipur 492009, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - C.G. State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Managing Director, Vidhyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, P.S. DD Nagar, Raipur 492013,Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Superintending Engineer, City Circle-I, CSPDCL, Danganiya, PS DD Nagar, Raipur C.G. 492013 ... Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner :- Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate appears along with Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate For Respondents :- Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

07.11.2024

¶17

1. In the present petition, from the reliefs sought by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has preferred various applications and

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

has approached various authorities right from 23.11.2005, but till date, the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed on merits and on technical grounds, the applications/representations/complaints of the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶20

2. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe with Ms. Anushka Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid the entire amount raised by the respondents and has paid a sum of Rs.38,03,846/- to them, however, since the said amount has been raised by the respondent authorities in an illegal and arbitrary manner, therefore, the petitioner is still willing to challenge the same and in sum and substance, he has paid the amount in protest as he has to run his unit i.e. Board and Paper Mill. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the earlier order dated 14.12.2011 was passed by the Ombudsman, while remanding back the matter, the said order was never been challenged by the respondent authorities and, as such, it has become final and binding upon them. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶21

3. On the other hand, Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is still challenging the preliminary order, whereas the final order has been passed vide order dated 02.01.2008, which is still not challenged by the petitioner. As such, at this stage, the petitioner cannot raise any objection and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned order with due care and circumspection.

¶24

5. From the perusal of the documents as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties, it appears that both have failed to challenge various orders and the result is that a final decision on merits in respect of the grievance of the petitioner is still to come.

¶25

6. In light of aforesaid submissions, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to challenge all his grievances including the final assessment order dated 02.01.2008 before the concerned appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) and in turn, the respondent authorities are obliged to decide the appeal filed under Section 127 of the Act on merits so that in case any adverse order is passed, the petitioner may prefer appropriate proceedings before the concerned authority. Further, it seems that in spite of contesting the case before various forums, the petitioner has not yet received the final fruits of his complaint, therefore, it is further directed that the respondent authorities shall not take any technical ground including that of limitation because right from the year 2005, the petitioner is continuously raising his objection before various authorities including Single Bench, Division Bench of this Court, Electricity forum and Ombudsman.

¶26

7. In the outcome, the petitioner is permitted to file appropriate application before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the

¶27

4 / 4

¶28

Act and in turn, the respondent authorities are also directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner on merits, without being influenced by the impugned order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Ombudsman, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents. The said exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the appeal.

¶29

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶30

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶31

Vishakha

Umiya Board And Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. C.g. State Power Distri. Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umiya Board And Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. C.g. State Power Distri. Co. Ltd. and Anr.

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

Abhishek Jaiswal Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Ors.

Dr.namrata Sayam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Bharat Bhushan Sahu and Anr. Vs State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Abdul Rauf Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sanjay Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.