HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 4207 of2009 'etitioner Novelty Khadi Industr}r, fhrough its proprietor Girdh.an Lal Sharma, aged 44 years, S/o Late Radheshyain Sharma, R/o Radheshyam. Shakuntala Niwas, Plot No.6 Krishna Sakha Society, Da^aniya, District Raipur (C. G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, througli the Chief Secretaiy, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2. State of Chliattisgarh, through the Principal Secretaiy, Departnient of Euergy, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 3. Chtiattisgarh. State Power Holding Company Ud. (C.S.P.H.C.L.) through its Maaagin^ Director, Daganiya, Raipur. 4. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. (C.S.P.G.C.L.) tbrough its Maiiaging Director, Daganiya, Raipur. 5. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. (C.S.P.D.C.L.) through its Mauaging Director, Dagaiuya, Raipur. 6. Chhattisgarh State Power Transinition Compaay Ltd. (C.S.P.T.C.L.) througb. its Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur. 7. Chliattisgarh State Power Trading eoiapany Ltd. (C.S.P.Tr.C.L.) through its Maaagia^ Director, Dagaaiya, Raipur. 8. Chhattisgarh State Electncity Einployees aiid Officers Co-Orclination Com.iuittee, through its Coordiaator, Daganiya, Raipur. (Writ Petition uiider Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) (SB: HonTsle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Amrito Das, Panel Lawyer for the lEspondents No. 1 aad 2. SIiri A. S. Galiarwar, Advbcate for the respondents No. 3 to 7. Shri Vivek Shanna, Advocate for the respoudent No.8, ( Passed on this 8th day ofAugust, 2009 ) Heard. The petitioner, by this petition, prays for foUowing relief: "10.2 The HonT^le Court niay kiiidly be pleased to issue a writ to the Respondents to solve their dispute through luediation ia the large iuterest ofpublic at the earliest. ""»"'•;.. •s'.' -~-^'f ^ 10.3 Tlie Hon'ble Court inay kiadly be pleased to du^ct the to act accordiag to the spint of Electricity Act 2003 for iaterest oflarger public " 2. Leamed counsel appeariag for the petitioner subinits that the petitioner is a inicro industnr and the family of petitioner as weU as ofh.er 52 persous are eamtag fheir liveUhood by engagiiig fheiiiselves ia fhe petitioner uidustry. The respoadent No.8 Employees aiid Officers Coordination Coiniaittee has called a stnke on 11.8.2009 as the respondents No. 3 to 7 are not solvuig tlieir probleins. Because of the strike, supply of electricity niay be uitemipted which m.ay not only affect the operation of fhe petitioner iadustry but also cause probleias to the public at large. Thus, fhe respondents No. 1 to 7 raay be directed to solve the dispute of the officers and einployees of fhe Electricity Board fhrough inediation iu the lai^er public iuterest aud fhe respondents inay also be dil~ected to act in. accordance wifh the spirit of Electricity Act, 2003. The petitiouer has not raised any specific iD.stan.ee asto wheflier he requested fhe respondents for solving the dispute between tlie respondents No. 1 to 7 and 8. How to resolve dispute between fhe employees and the Electricity Board Manageiuent is for the Electricity Board to decide not for fhe Court to issue any direction in that respect. Similarly, unless it is brought to the notice asto which provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 is violated by fhe respondents, it is presuraed that fhe respondents are acting iu acc.ordan.ee witii provisions of law. In view of the above the petition is devoid of nierit. The writ petition is disinissed accordingly. r Thalcur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge