IN THE HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A? BELAS?E§E§ w V C tr» \ty WRIT PETITION (C) No.~723?0F 2099: $§NQLE 3§§x§§§§§ PETITKENER: /Mamsh 8c Associates, £3) (Partnership Eirm, through its .partner Mamsh Agrawal, S/o .. Vishwanth Agrawal, aged abem EKVQo 33 years, R/o Bagbahara) Dist. ‘k xix§ Mahasamund (CG). Versus / RESPON§3ENTS : 1. Chhattisgarh State Puwcr Distribution Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur {CG}. 2. Executive Engineer {08A, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, ‘Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (CG). / 3. Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Chhai‘tisgarh $1ate Power Distribution Company Limited, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (CG). 4. Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distributitm Company Limited, Komakhan, Bagbahara, Dist’ Mahasamund (CG). 5. Krishna Parboiling Unit, through ‘its Proprietor Krishna Kumar Agrawal, presently residing at Khariyar Road, Nuapada, Orissa. WRE'E‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 225 {‘BE?‘ ‘f"§‘§£ CONSTITUTION OF 1NDEA y _ M} ; IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.7287 OF 2009 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 15‘“ day of July, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by I Virtue of authorization letter dated 1-12-2008 (Annexure — P/2) ) the installation of electricity connection in the name of the respondent No.5 gets transferred to the petitioner firm. On query, no document or no law has been produced, which permits the transfer of electricity connection to any other person on the basis of any authority. ' L: H PETITIONER - Manish & Associates Versus RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Others 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 ‘ to 4 submits that the respondent No.5,in whose name,the electricity connection Twas installed, has requested to disconnect the electricity connection in dispute by letter dated 24-9—2009 (Annexure — R/1), and thereafter, he has further by an affidavit dated 2-7-2009 (Annexure e R/2) has submitted that he has not / given any authority letter or authorization to use or transfer the installation of electricity. connection to the petitioner firm. Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh application for electricity connection before the respondent authorities. At this juncture, Shri Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4, submits that if the fresh application is made by the petitioner for electricity connection, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law and proper electricity connection may be granted. In view of foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Gowri