Partly allowed

Anil Kumar and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC3 Jan 2013WPMS/10/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Uttarakhand addressed a dispute regarding the notice for electric supply disconnection served to consumers residing in Uttar Pradesh. The court held that while the notice was not illegal, the timing was inequitable due to severe winter conditions.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the disconnection of electric supply for a period of three English Calendar months, subject to payment of legitimate dues and charges.

Anil Kumar and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 10 of 2013 (M/S)

¶2

Anil Kumar and others Versus State of Uttarakhand and others

¶3

….. Petitioners

¶4

Versus ..… Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶7

Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.

¶8

This writ petition is admitted, however, having regard to the nature of relief claimed herein, no counter affidavit is required to be filed. The respondents Corporation has served notice upon the petitioners for disconnection of electric supply line. The petitioners and each of them are residents of village Veerpur, Tehsil Mevala Kalan, District Moradabad which falls within the territory of State of U.P. The petitioners and each of them are consumers before bifurcation of the State of U.P. The respondents had been and still have been supplying electric energy to the petitioners. When the petitioners became consumer of the respondents they were the residents of undivided State of U.P. After bifurcation, the respondents now situate in the State of Uttarakhand. Obviously, the respondents cannot serve the consumers who are not the resident of this State as net-work of electric supply cannot be extended beyond the territory of this State.

¶9

Therefore, I am of the view, notice served by the respondents cannot be said to be an illegal. But timing chosen is not equitable. Hence, I think on humanitarian

¶10

¶11

ground, the supply line shall not be disconnected for a period of three English Calendar months from date. It is a question of right to life and livelihood both linked with electricity now-a-days. In this bitterly cold winter season, if the respondents disconnect the electric supply line, the petitioners have to make arrangement for legal source of electric energy from the counter part of the State of U.P. which cannot be obtained overnight.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that their clients are residents of village and are not in a position to get electric supply through their own arrangement, namely, by installing any generator.

¶13

In this severe cold if the electric supply is disrupted or discontinued, it amounts to endangering lives of the members of the families of the respective petitioners. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that in this area the minimum temperature varies from 1 to 5 degree celsius. In the meantime, the petitioners will be entitled to take steps in accordance with law as may be advised. I make it clear the petitioners shall pay all the legitimate dues and charges to the Corporation as and when lawfully demanded. In case of failure to pay the lawful dues and charges by the petitioners, it would be open for the respondents to take steps in accordance with law as if they are the consumers of the respondents.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

(K.J. Sengupta, J.)

¶16

Dated 3^rd January, 2013 Shiv

Anil Kumar and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

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

Brij Mohan Juyal Vs Garhwal Mandal Vikash Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Rameshwar Dayal Vs State and Ors.

Deepak Negi Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Raja Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs Mohit Kumar Garg and Others

Madan Mohan Durgapal Vs State and Ors.