AMRIT LAL SHARMA Vs. UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LTD
LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-51
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 14,2013

AMRIT LAL SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

HONBLE B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M.C. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Uniyal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.2 and Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the public notice/information notice dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure -1) published in the Daily News Paper 'Amar Ujala by the respondent no.1 as far as it relates to the petitioners.
(3.) SRI Parikshit Saini, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has informed the Court that similar controversy has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No.10 of 2013 (M/S) Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors, decided on 3rd January, 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied the above fact. I have carefully gone through the said judgment. The said judgment is squarely applicable to this case also. The said judgment is quoted hereunder: "This writ petition is admitted, however, having regard to the nature of relief claimed herein, no counter affidavit is required to be filed. The respondents Corporation has served notice upon the petitioners for disconnection of electric supply line. The petitioners and each of them are residents of village Veerpur, Tehsil Mevala Kalan, District Moradabad which falls within the territory of State of U.P. The petitioners and each of them are consumers before bifurcation of the State of U.P. The respondents had been and still have been supplying electric energy to the petitioners. When the petitioners became consumer of the respondents they were the residents of undivided State of U.P. After bifurcation, the respondents now situate in the State of Uttarakhand. Obviously, the respondents cannot serve the consumers who are not the resident of this State as net -work of electric supply cannot be extended beyond the territory of this State. Therefore, I am of the view, notice served by the respondents cannot be said to be an illegal. But timing chosen is not equitable. Hence, I think on humanitarian ground, the supply line shall not be disconnected for a period of three English Calendar months from date. It is a question of right to life and livelihood both linked with electricity now -a -days. In this bitterly cold winter season, if the respondents disconnect the electric supply line, the petitioners have to make arrangement for legal source of electric energy from the counter part of the State of U.P. which cannot be obtained overnight. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that their clients are residents of village and are not in a position to get electric supply through their own arrangement, namely, by installing any generator. In this severe cold if the electric supply is disrupted or discontinued, it amounts to endangering lives of the members of the families of the respective petitioners. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that in this area the minimum temperature varies from 1 to 5 degree celsius. In the meantime, the petitioners will be entitled to take steps in accordance with law as may be advised. I make it clear the petitioners shall pay all the legitimate dues and charges to the Corporation as and when lawfully demanded. In case of failure to pay the lawful dues and charges by the petitioners, it would be open for the respondents to take steps in accordance with law as if they are the consumers of the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.