M/S. Shiva Sagar Paper And Chemicals Ltd., v. Eastern Power Distribution Company Of Ap., Limited.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.23223 OF 2007
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not restoring the petitioner's power supply, which was disconnected on 25.6.2007 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the order passed by the this Court in W.P.No.9213 of 2004, dated 31.1.2005 and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the power supply.
Heard Sri Duba V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ravindra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
This Court vide order dated 5.11.2005 passed an elaborate order to the effect that if the petitioner pays Rs.10,00,000/- within two weeks, power supply would be restored.
It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has paid the said amount and the respondents have restored the power supply.
In view of the same, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.
However, a request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner-company is a small scale industry, it is entitled to 25% rebate of electricity charges in terms of the policy of the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 25.05.2016 and therefore, it may be permitted to agitate its rights before the competent authority. In view of the same, the petitioner-company is at liberty to agitate its rights for entitlement of 25% rebate in terms of the policy of the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 25.05.2017, in respect of the small scale industries. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 6th April, 2018 rkk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.4084 OF 2007
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 31.03.2004 issued by the 1st respondent, wherein the petitioner was shown as 25% disabled, as arbitrary and illegal and not in consonance with the Orthopaedically Handicapped Certificate issued by the competent District Medical Board, M.G.H Hospital, Warangal, determining 65% permanent disability, and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to grant the disablement benefit to the petitioner on the ground that he is suffering from 65% permanent disability.
Heard Sri K. Srinivasa Varada Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.G. Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as a labourer under the control of the 3rd respondent and while working as such, he met with an accident on 29.06.2002, sustained serious injuries and he was treated at Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the Medical Board of Warangal has assessed the disability
sustained by the petitioner as 65% permanent disability and based on which, he was given Orthopaedically Handicapped Certificate on 17.12.2003. Since the petitioner is a labourer working in the 3rd respondent, for claiming disablement benefit, he approached the 1st respondent to assess his disability, but the 1st respondent has assessed his disability as 25% instead of 65%. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 contended that respondents 1 and 2 rightly assessed the disability of the petitioner as 25% and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner ought to have approached the Appellate Medical Tribunal under Section 54 -A of the ESI Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the disability as assessed by the M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal is taken as 65%, he would be entitled for substantial claim of more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards disablement benefit and since respondents 1 and 2 have incorrectly assessed the disability of the petitioner, he is made to lose that disablement benefit of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered
view that at this length of time, it is not proper to direct the petitioner to approach the appellate medical Tribunal. The ends of justice would be met if the case of the petitioner is referred to Osmania General Hospital to assess his disability by an independent Medical Board to be constituted by Osmania General Hospital. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to refer the case of the petitioner to the Medical Board to be constituted by the Osmania General Hospital for correct assessment of his disability. If the Medical Board so constituted by the Osmania General Hospital assessed the disability of the petitioner as 65%, then the petitioner would be entitled for disablement benefit for which he may pursue his remedies.
With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 29th March, 2018 rkk