Raghuveer Prasad v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2871 of 2017 Raghuveer Prasad S/o Taramato, Aged about 43 years, Proprietor of M/s Mundar Electrical, M.I.G. 1/611, Hudko, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, through its Executive Engineer, (Project), Division C.G.S.E.D.C. Ltd. Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Through Its Executive Director, Durg Division, Division- C.G.S.E.D.C. Ltd. Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, through its Superintending Engineer (Finance Department, Durg Division), Division- C. G. S. E. D. C. Ltd. Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

4. Director, Superintendent(Distribution), Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Collector, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

6. Executive Engineer, C.G.S.D.P.L. Company Ltd. Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

7. M. Appa Rao, S/o M. Sanyasi Rao, Post- Line Man, C.G.S.P.D.L. Company, Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

8. Smt. Damini Sahu, Wd/o Late Anandram Sahu, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village- Bhirai, Post- Palari, Tahsil- Gurur, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

9. Kavind Sahu, S/o Late Anandram Sahu, Aged about 20 years, R/o VillageBhirai, Post- Palari, Tahsil- Gurur, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Mr. Ashish Surana, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board 31/10/17 1.

In the Civil suit filed by Smt. Damini Sahu and other claimants, money decree has been passed by the trial Court on 02.08.2017 and the decreetal amount was said to have been deposited by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited but the said company has issued a letter to the petitioner on 18.09.2017 fixing the liability upon the petitioner to deposit the said amount. Being aggrieved against which this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is liable to make payment of only 1⁄4 of the decreetal amount.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.

Be that as it may, the petitioner would be at liberty to make an application before the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited stating his grievances that will be considered by the said Company strictly in accordance with law and as per the decree passed by the trial Court.

5.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka