Disposed

Shandhya Shankar v. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director and Ors.

Jharkhand HC21 Feb 2023WPC/5452/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition originally filed to obtain an electricity connection, raising a procedural issue regarding succession. The court allowed the son of the original petitioner to proceed as the petitioner by directed.replaceing the cause title to the legal heir.

What did the court decide?

The legal representative of the original petitioner is permitted to file a fresh online application for an electricity connection, with previous fees adjustable against the new application

Shandhya Shankar Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 5452 of 2015

¶3

Prawal Shankar, aged about 37 years, S/o late Ajit Shankar, R/o – Village Massipirhi, Opposite Konar Petrol Pump, P.O. – Babhanbai, P.S. – Sadar, District Hazaribagh … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director having its office at Engineers Bhawan, HEC Campus, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi

¶5

The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Electric Supply Area, Hazaribagh, Julu Park, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. – Sadar, District Hazaribagh

¶6

The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Electric Supply Circle, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. – Sadar, District Hazaribagh

¶7

The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Supply Division, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. – Sadar, District Hazaribagh

¶8

The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Rural), Electrical Supply SubDivision, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District – Hazaribagh

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate

¶13

¶14

13 /21.02.2023 Learned counsels for the parties are present.

¶15

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶16

“For quashing the letter dated 24/2/15 issued by the respondent and petitioner further prayed for direction upon the respondent authority to give electricity connection (for home & agriculture purpose) in the ancestral residential house of petitioner forthwith as the petitioner is residing in the said house since long after getting the possession of the same on the basis of family settlement which has been reduced in writing as partition deed dated 6/12/96 and previous connection standing in the name of brother of petitioner has been disconnected on being application made by the brother of the petitioner due to family dispute and when the petitioner requested to provide fresh connection, the respondent illegally and malafidely vide letter dated 24/2/15 intimated to the petitioner that form is un-complete on the purported ground that written permission of land lord has not been obtained ignoring the fact that petitioner is owner of house and land.”

¶17

3. I.A. No.7030 of 2021 has been filed by Prawal Shankar, who is the son of the original petitioner seeking leave to proceed with the instant writ petition being the legal representative of the original writ petitioner.

¶18

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the application for electricity connection was submitted by the original petitioner and now the son of the original petitioner will have to file a fresh application for grant of electricity connection. He has submitted that a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed in the instant

¶19

¶20

case indicating that online application can be entertained. The learned counsel further submits that the fees which has been submitted by the original writ petitioner, if any, can be adjusted against the fees of the fresh application by the son of the original petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that as per the present norms, only one electricity connection is to be given in one premises and for that purpose no objection is required from the other legal heirs of the original petitioner along with the application for electricity connection. He also submits that the interlocutory application does not disclose the names of the other legal heirs of the original petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that multiple connection can be given in the same premises only when there is a partition amongst the legal heirs of the owner of the property, otherwise no objection from other legal heirs would be sufficient to get one electricity connection.

¶21

I.A. No.7030 of 2021

¶22

5. Considering the aforesaid submission, I.A. No.7030 of 2021 filed by Prawal Shankar son of the original petitioner is being allowed only for the purposes of the disposal of the present writ petition. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete the name of the original petitioner and insert the name of Prawal Shankar in the cause title in red ink during the course of the day.

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 5452 of 2015

¶24

6. This writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to file fresh online application for electricity connection after taking no objection from the other legal heirs of the original petitioner. It is further observed that if any fees/deposit has been deposited by the original petitioner for the purposes of grant of electricity connection, the same will be adjustable against the fresh application. In case, the petitioner requires any technical assistance for filing online application, he shall approach the Electrical Executive Engineer i.e. respondent no.4, who shall assist the petitioner in filing the online application. In case there is any trouble in adjustment of the fees, if any, already deposited by the original petitioner, then off- line application be accepted and processed. It is further observed that it will be open to the petitioner to seek refund of the fees/deposit which

¶25

¶26

might have been deposited earlier by the original petitioner or seek adjustment of such fees/deposit.

¶27

7. The fresh connection for electricity should be granted within a period of 15 days from the date of filing of such application if there is no other legal impediment. In case, the respondents chooses to decline the electricity connection, a reasoned order be passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and be communicated to the petitioner through speed post within the aforesaid period of 15 days.

¶28

8. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.

¶30

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶31

Saurav/

Shandhya Shankar v. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shandhya Shankar v. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director and Ors.

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

Ms Ganga Engineering through Its Manager Harendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aditya Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shyamapada Dey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bal Krishna Agarwal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jakir Hussain Alias Raju Alias Zakir Hussain Vs Gulam Mohammad