IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICftTURE _ftT JftBftLPUB MRIT S'ETITJON N0_. A^ 3 ^ OF 2000 PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 ^F THE^QNSTITUTION OF,INDIfi Rudra Cemen't Limited, Pandri Pani, Geedam Road, JflGDALPUR (M.P.). through Shr-j. P.R^Agra^al , Dirsc' •kor. .................................... .F'ETITI OMER F'radesh Madhya Board ^ Raaipur, JfiBALPUR through its VERSUS Electricity Ssc r'is'bs^v B £>;ecutive Dir&ctor (JR), 1'ladhya Pradesh Electricity Board. JfiGDALPUR (M.P.)....... RESPDNDENTS 1. Particulars ot the oetj.tj.Qner : As per the cause title above. 2. Fartlculars of the rssoondents ;; As per the cau'se title above. Particulars of the order asaainst which thi' !3etxti.an_ 1s ffiadss ^i'^l ~K 1 'r H! I!w\ i:lfll -S III KlttJI ^, 4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR S£: Hon'bte Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. Writ Petition No. 2436/2000 PETITIONER : RESPONDENTS Rudra Cement Limlted Versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and another Shri Vlshnu Koshta, counsel for the petitioner. ORALORDER (3.08.2012) This writ peb'tion has been preferred praying issuance of command to the respondent to setBe the aecount of ttie petitfoner/company as requested by it and to provide 3 phase LT line at the untt. (2) According to the petHioner the company has established a mini c^nent ptant at Jagdalpur and there was some delay in execution of project consequent to which petitioner applied for reduction of contract demand. ?) In para 5.4 of the writ petition it is averred tfiat tt»e petffioner closed tfie cement plant on 12/02/1999 and requested for disconnection of elecAietfy supply. The said request was alfowed, however account was not srttted and berause of this non-settlement of account 3 phase LT line to the petitioner unit was also not provided. (4) This writ petition is pending since April, 2000 and no one appears on behalf of respondente. (5) In the return filed by the respondents it has been submitted that in terms of Section 28 (B) of the agreennent the consumer is required to serve at teast three months nofee before requesting for disconnection of suppfy and till final dedsion in the matter fs taken by the competent authortty, billing as per provteion af HT agreement executed shatl continue and then the petBioner is requiresl to .E»y aiftount of Rs.5,09,232/- in temis of the agreement. (6) In view of the return since there is conti^rtual dispute briween the parties, the writ pefition is disposed of with a direction to the petffioner to approach tte concerned authority along wtth Ws grievance (w settlement of account and if the petitiorier approaches the said authority wittiin a period of fajr weeks from today, the authority concerned shall settle the account in accordance witti syreement within a period oftwo months thereafter. (7) If any grievance still subsists, peb'tioner may tak®recouree under ths terms ofHTagreement. (8) With the above observafion, the writ petition stands disposed ®f. _^_-L Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge