← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhREVP/142/2016dismissed

Prahlad v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

2016-11-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 142 of 2016 • Prahlad S/o Dinu Lal, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jota, Post Tandawa, P. S. Nevra ( Tilda ), District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Managing Director Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

4. Superintendent Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Durg District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

5. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, Through Its Secretary, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (M.P.) ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petition for Review (By Circulation in Chamber) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order passed on 04.11.2016 1.

This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 26.08.2016 passed WPS No. 2910 of 2016 mainly on the ground that similar cases have already been disposed off vide order dated 08.04.2015 passed in bunch of cases WPS No. 360 of 2015 (Raja Ram Kosle Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. and others) and other cases and order dated 18.12.2014 passed in another batch of petitions WP No. 2952 of 2006 (Om Prakash Thakur Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. and others).

2.

This Court has already considered aforesaid aspects and it was observed that those petitions have been filed long back and

therefore, distinction has been drawn because the petitioner has filed this petition only in the year 2016.

3.

The details on WPS No. 4387 of 2016 shows that only notices have been given in the petition. Moreover, this fact was not brought to the knowledge of the Court when order was being passed, therefore, no case of review is made out. 4.

Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra