AMRIT LAL SHARMA Vs. UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LTD
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AMRIT LAL SHARMA
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd
Click here to view full 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
(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
"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.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.