Geeta Kumari v. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9687 of 2016 ====================================================== Geeta Kumari D/o Sri Rajendra Chaudhary R/o Jogiya Tola, Sadar Bazar, Phulwarisharif, P.O. Phulwarisharif, P.S. Phulwarisharif Distt Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board Income Tax Golumber Bailey Road, Patna.

2. The Chairman, the Electricity Department, Income Tax Golumber Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The General Manager (PESU) Bihar Patna.

4. The Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Section Phulwarisharif Patna.

5. The Secretary, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited.

6. Sri Bachan Saw S/o Ramautar Saw Resident of Village- Sadar Bazar, Phulwarisharif, P.S. Phulwarisharif, Distt Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Adv.

: Mr. Shashi Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 06-09-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant new commercial electric connection in the cosmetic shop of the petitioner situated at Sadar Bazar, Phulwarisharif, Patna.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid the requisite fees for new connection, however, the respondents are not granting connection on one pretext or the other.

The learned counsel for the respondent Electricity

Patna High Court CWJC No.9687 of 2016 (2) dt.06-09-2018 2/2 Company has submitted that despite communication made to the petitioner, the petitioner has not been able to furnish the requisite documents which are required for the purpose of granting electricity connection. One of such document is the consent/ permission of the landlord, which the petitioner has failed to submit. It is also submitted that there is a dispute between the landlord and tenant, hence the money/interest of the electricity company would not be secured in case the electricity connection is granted to the petitioner and the petitioner utilizes electricity in the said premises.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the present writ petition, thus the same is dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U