Mohammad Anish Baksh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1659 of 2021 Mohammad Anish Baksh S/o Ali Baksh, Aged About 28 Years R/o G-21, Sada Colony Korba, Police Station Kotwali Korba And Tehsil Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) --- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Power Sector Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. The Executive Engineer (City Division Korba), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Korba (East) District Korba (Chhattisgarh).

3. The Assistant Engineer (Pondimar Zone Korba), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Korba (East) District Korba Chhattisgarh.

4. The Assistant Engineer (Distribution), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Korba (East) District Korba (Chhattisgarh). --- Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board .03.2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with a letter of demand on 10.07.2020 whereby the demand has been made to pay the electricity charges of Rs.5,45,120=00 which is due uptill November, 2019.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already vacated the premises way back in the year 2017 and at the same time has requested to disconnect the electricity which is evident from Annexure P-6 dated 12.05.2017 and after 12.5.2017 he is not in occupation and entire charges were already paid, therefore under the circumstances, the petitioner has made representation to

the Executive Engineer, Respondent no.2 vide Annexure P-4, which is still pending consideration, therefore, he prays that the said representation may be directed to be decided by respondent no.2.

3. Considering the limited prayer that the petitioner claims that he vacated the premises in the year 2017 and till 2017 the entire bills were paid, and the document Annexure P-4 shows that the petitioner has already made an application to respondent no.2, respondent no.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merit in respect of accrued liability of the petitioner. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao