Disposed¶35

Deepan Chakraborty v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2025WPC/458/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 458 of 2022; Deepan Chakraborty v. State of Chhattisgarh and others; Article 226 of the Constitution; removal of damaged electric pole in front of dwelling house; representations unanswered; direction to Director and Additional Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited; 30-day timeline; Ambikapur, District Surguja/Sarguja; writ petition disposed of; Judge Amitendra Kishore Prasad; decided 09.04.2025; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:16724.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's case and remove the damaged electric pole within 30 days, if possible; writ petition disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction. ¶35

Deepan Chakraborty Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.04.09 19:06:56 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:16724

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 458 of 2022

¶7

Deepan Chakraborty S/o Late Dr. J.C. Chakraborty Aged About 66 Years R/o Jail Road, Babupara, Ambikapur, P.S. And Post Office Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Irrigation Colony, Shantinagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Director Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Irrigation Colony, Shantinagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Additional Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Irrigation Colony, Shantinagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Commissioner Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - The Collector Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - The Nodal Officer Panchayat And Social Welfare, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner	: Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AnupMajumdar, Advocate
For Respondent-State	: Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents No.2 & 3	: Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate

¶19

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

09.04.2025

¶23

1 Heard Mr. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for State as well as Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶24

2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):-

¶25

“10.1. That the records pertaining to the erection of the electric pole may be kindly called for kind perusal of the Hon'ble court.

¶26

10.2. That the respondents maybe directed that the electric pole in front of the main gate of the dwelling house of the petitioner may be kindly be removed and shifted to some other place.

¶27

10.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and

¶28

circumstances of the case.”

¶29

3 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in front of the house of the petitioner, an electric pole has been

¶30

¶31

damaged and for removal of the same, he has made several representations, but till date, no decision has been taken on the representations filed by the petitioner, as such, the petitioner is restrained to file the instant writ petition.

¶32

4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, at the very outset submits that since the grievance of the petitioner is fair and reasonable, they will consider the representations filed by the petitioner and will remove the electric pole within some short span.

¶33

5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

¶34

6 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the electric pole has been damaged in front of the main gate of the petitioner, which creates hindrance to him, respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and remove the electric pole within a period of 30 days, if possible.

¶35

7 With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶38

Yogesh

Deepan Chakraborty v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepan Chakraborty v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhaneshwar Tandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mishrilal Markhande Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuvan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikeshwari Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Dixit Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh