my?” <72 / EV IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIONtC) N0£903 /2010,. §mgw%@m% ‘ PETITIONER: Indar Singh Parihar, son of Late Ram Singh Parihar, aged about S’f years, residence of 1500/ 1, Kelo Vihar Colony, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. VerSuS Respondents Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, also known as ChhattiSgarh State Electricity Board, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 8" ~ i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N05903: OF 2010 PETITIONER Indar Singh Parihar Versus Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri C‘J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29‘h day of Juiy, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to provide permanent electricity connection to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid the requisite sum for getting the permanent electricity connection. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the permanent electricity connection cannot be given to the petitioner, as firstly; the colony is not recognized one and; second/y; it is the responsibility of the residents of the colony/ colonizer to provide infrastructure i.e. by installing transformers or payment is to be made to the Board for installation of the same, Thus, the electricity connection was not given to the petitioner. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, since there is a statutory provision£of appeal/representation under sub-sections (6) & (7) Section 42 ojirthe Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act, 2003"). The submissions made hereinabove by the learned counsel appearing for the parties may not be treated as finding of the Court. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to take recourse to the statutory forum as may be available under the provisions of the Act, 2003. Learned counsel further submits that in the meantime, the respondent authority may be directed not to disconnect the electricity connection, which is already in existence. Since the matter has been. pending consideration from 2010, it is expected that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, in respect of the temporary electricity connection, subject to deposit of the required tariff by the petitioner, for a period of 15 days from today. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Sci/— Satish K. Agnihotti Judge 1V ‘ 17', /'/.