Cyfuture India Pvt. Ltd. v. Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (Formerly Known As New Raipur Development Authority)

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1042 of 2020 Cyfuture India Pvt. Ltd. A Duly Registered Company Under The Indian Companies Act, 1956 and Having Its Office At Plot No.197/198, Noida, Special Economic Zone (Nsez), Phase-2, On Dadri Road, Noida, U.P., Pin No. 302022, (Phase 2, Noida), Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Gautam Sharma, S/o Shri Ram Dular Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ravi Nagar, Near Lotus Hospital, Raja Talab, Raipur- 492001, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (Formerly Known As New Raipur Development Authority) Through Chief Executive Officer, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Capitol Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Mr. Abhinav Kardekar, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10/06/2020

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is to the action on the part of the respondents in disconnecting the facilities like water supply, Electricity, etc.

2. The reason for disconnecting the electricity and water supply to the petitioner premise was on account of the petitioner not providing fire safety certificate required in the maintenance of the building.

3. Today when the matter is taken up, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner establishment on 29.05.2020 have

obtained fire safety certificate from the State authorities and petitioner has filed the said document in Court on 09.06.2020 and a copy is endorsed to the counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondent today submits that he has instructions to state that such document has not been served upon the authorities till date.

5. Given the fact that petitioner now has obtained the required fire safety certificate from the competent authority, this Court is of the opinion that writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the petitioner to produce fire safety document/certificate that he has now obtained on 29.05.2020 to the respondent authorities. That the respondent authorities in turn shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for restoration of water and electricity supply at the earliest.

6. This proposition has not been opposed to by the counsel for the respondent authorities.

7. It is expected that respondent authorities shall take prompt decision within an outer limit of 15 days.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit