Disposed¶28

Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav v. Executive Director

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2025WPC/4395/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compensation claim for death of husband due to electrocution; representations dated 01.05.2016 and 24.07.2024 to Junior Engineer, CSPDCL Mungeli; receipt-seal objection by respondents; earlier order dated 03.09.2024 recalled in review Revp No.17/2025 allowed 07.04.2025; writ petition disposed of without merits with direction to respondents Nos. 3 & 4 to decide fresh representation within three months; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:39135.

What did the court decide?

Permission to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondents Nos. 3 & 4, with a direction to those respondents to consider and decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of such representation. ¶28

Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav Vs Executive Director — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents were to be directed to take a decision on the petitioner's claim for compensation for the death of her husband, the claim having allegedly not been considered and no order having been passed. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Without entering into the merits of the petitioner's claim for compensation on account of the death of her near relative (husband) due to electrocution, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondents Nos. 3 & 4.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 shall consider and decide the fresh representation expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPC No. 4395 of 2024), High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur — Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. and others — decided 06.08.2025 by Arvind Kumar Verma, J. The petitioner sought compensation for the death of her husband late Mahettar Lal Yadav, claimed to be due to electrocution, through representations dated 01.05.2016 and 24.07.2024 moved before respondent No. 4; the respondents contended the representations bore no receipt seal. An earlier order of this Court dated 03.09.2024 passed on merits had been recalled in review (Revp No. 17/2025, allowed on 07.04.2025) owing to erroneous mention of the husband's name in the cause title, and the writ petition stood restored. Without entering into the merits of the claim, the Court disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondents Nos. 3 & 4 (the Executive Engineer (O/M) and Junior Engineer, CSPDCL, Mungeli), who were directed to consider and decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

2025:CGHC:39135

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4395 of 2024

¶5

Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav W/o Late Mahettar Lal Yadav Aged About 74 Years Resident Of Village Jamkor, Post Devri, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 06-08-2025)

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - The Executive Director Bilaspur Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - The Executive Engineer (O / M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - The Junior Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. CK Sahu, Advocate.

¶14

For Respondents : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶16

06.08.2025

¶17

1. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court has passed the order on 03.09.2024 on merits in this writ petition. Since the husband name of the petitioner was erroneously mentioned in cause title of the said order, review petition (Revp No.17/2025) has been filed by the petitioner/wife,

¶18

¶19

which was allowed on 07.04.2025 and order dated 03.09.2024 has been recalled and writ petition is restored and, thereafter, listed today for hearing.

¶20

2. Brief facts of this case is that petitioner/wife has moved representation before respondent No.4 seeking compensation on account of death of her husband late Mahettar Lal Yadav, vide representations dated 01.05.2016 and 24.07.2024.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not considered the claim of the petitioner nor have passed any order in this regard and, therefore, direction be issued to respondent No.4 to take decision on the claim of the petitioner at the earliest.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner on merits, however, he submits that the representations which is stated to be submitted before the authorities is not bearing the receipt seal and, therefore, it cannot be said that the representations has been submitted by the petitioner before the competent authority.

¶23

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submit afresh representation before respondents No.3 & 4 and they be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously within the specified time.

¶24

6. I have heard counsel for respective parties and perused the documents annexed with the record.

¶25

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the

¶26

¶27

submissions made by counsel of respective parties, pleadings made in the writ petition of seeking compensation on account of death of the near relative (i.e. husband) of the petitioner due to electrocution, without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondents Nos.3 & 4 and in turn, respondents No.3 & 4 shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of ‘03 months’ from the date of receipt of such representation. It is ordered accordingly.

¶28

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

¶29

CC as per rules.

¶30

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶31

J/-

Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav v. Executive Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav v. Executive Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivcharan Sahu Vs Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh

Ramjan Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lachchhani Vs Jai Singh Dugga

Sandeep Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prateek Agro Industries Vs Union of India

Natwar Lal Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh