Jaba Herbals v. Union Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.342 of 2017 (Arising out of order dated 11.5.2017 in Writ Petition (C) No.2948 of 2016 of the learned Single Judge) Jaba Herbals Through Smt. Ranjit Kaur Saluja, Aged 44 Years, W/o Baljeet Singh Saluja, Village Bandhi, Tahsil Pendra, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Ministry Of Micro Small And Medium Enterprises, Udyog Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001

2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through General Manager, District Trade And Industries Centre, New Composite Building, Collectorate, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Ltd., Through Divisional Engineer, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Smt. Chitrangana Rahi, Aged About 30 Years Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Ltd, Pendra, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

5. State Bank Of India, Through Branch Manager, Pendra V B, Post Pendra, P.S. Pendra Road, Bilapsur, Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Shri Bhupendra Singh, Standing Counsel.

For Respondent No.2 : Shri UNS Deo, Government Advocate.

For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Veena Nair, Advocate.

For Respondent No.5 : Shri Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate.

___________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge.

Order on Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 18/09/2017 1.

Heard on I.A. No.01, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the application and are satisfied that sufficient cause

has been shown to condone the delay. Hence, I.A. No.01 is allowed. Delay is condoned. The writ appeal is taken for consideration on merits. 2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the respective Respondents.

3.

The Appellant is the proprietor of a Unit. According to her, it was started with the support of the Entrepreneurship Development Programme under the Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme. The Appellant came to this Court complaining that the Power Distribution Authority has not provided electric connection. As rightly noted by the learned Single Judge, the matter is a trivial issue because all that is required was that the supply leads, either by way of cable or otherwise, have to be provided by the consumer. Or, that person has to pay for it. The learned Single Judge has directed that the Respondent concerned will effect supply within 10 days of the Appellant making such provision. On the plea that the Appellant is entitled to be compensated for the loss that has allegedly resulted out of the delay in supplying of electrical energy, the learned Single Judge has, quite rightly, left open the issue to be agitated before the jurisdictional civil court.

4.

We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. This writ appeal therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Anu