The petitioner sought relief similar to Writ Petition No. 10 of 2013, which addressed electric supply disconnection for non-resident consumers. The court observed identical facts and issues.
The writ petition was disposed of by adopting the order of Writ Petition No. 10 of 2013.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 26 of 2013 (M/S)
….. Petitioners Mahendra Singh and others Versus Uttarakhand Power Corporation and others ..… Respondents
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.
No separate judgment may be delivered as both the learned counsel for the parties submits that on identical fact and issues, this Court has decided the matter by delivering judgment on 3rd January, 2013 in Writ Petition No. 10 of 2013 (M/S), Anil Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others . The said judgment is squarely applicable to this case also. The said judgment is set out as hereunder:-
“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.
2
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 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.
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.
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.
The writ petition is disposed of.”
Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition adopting above order.
Dated 4th January, 2013 Shiv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can grant relief in duplicate writ petitions arising from identical facts and issues decided earlier by the same court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and othersFollowed¶6
Writ Petition No. 10 of 2013 (M/S), Anil Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Singh and others
Uttarakhand Power Corporation and others
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
