Remanded

Saroj Ku.Nayak v. the Asst.Manager,Cesu

Orissa HC8 Mar 2017WP(C)/2600/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought electricity connections, alleging discrimination as others were connected despite alleged non-payment of transformer costs. The court directed the electricity authority to examine a pending representation and decide by a reasoned order within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Directing opposite party no.2 to examine the representation and decide within 30 days by a reasoned order after hearing parties.

Saroj Ku.Nayak Vs the Asst.Manager,Cesu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO.2600 OF 2017

¶2

08.3.2017.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. In view of the order this Court proposes to pass, it is not expedient to issue notice to op
posite parties.

¶3

3. The petitioner nos.1 to 7 are residents of village Ambithi, P.S.-Hindol in the district of
 Dhenkanal and petitioner nos.8 to 16 are residents of village Mahidharpur, P.S.-Banarpal, in
the district of Angul. They have applied for supply of electricity connection to their houses
. The grievance of the petitioners is that though other villagers of the same village have bee
n provided electricity by the opposite parties, they have not been provided with electricity c
onnection because of the alleged fact that they did not contribute towards installation cost o
f the transformer. If the opposite parties have adopted such method, the same is illegal. Ho
wever, the petitioners have made a representation before the Junior Manager (Electrical), CESU
, Hindol Electrical Section, Hindol, District-Dhenkanal, opposite party no.2, as at Annexure-1
, which is still pending.

¶4

4. In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing opposite par
ty no.2 to examine the representation of the petitioners as at Annexure-1 and take a decision
strictly in accordance with law and dispose of the same by a reasoned order after affording re
asonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all parties concerned within a period o
f thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order as well as the copy of
the brief.

¶5

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to file the certified copy of this order as
well as the copy of the brief before opposite party no.2 within a period of seven days.
6. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

Saroj Ku.Nayak v. the Asst.Manager,Cesu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Ku.Nayak v. the Asst.Manager,Cesu

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

Mayadhar Sethy Vs State of Orissa

Bichitra Kumar Behera Vs Chief Executive Officer,Nesco Ltd.

Prasanna Ku.Pati Vs State of Orissa

Dillip Ku.Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sk.Ismail Vs Director,Markets

Ashok Ku.Parija Vs State of Odisha