- (1.) Heard Sri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made three prayers claiming substantial relief in the matter, reproduced hereunder: "i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.09.2009 and order dated 05.08.2009 in so far it refused to allow electricity connection from town feeder (Annexure Nos.6 and 5 to the writ petition), passed by the Executive Engineer; ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from disconnecting electric supply till the final adjustment of amount found refundable to the petitioner; iii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Executive Engineer to allow interest on the amount found refundable to the petitioner along with rebates provided in the tariffs' order and further to allow revision of electricity bill under Non-Continuous Process Industry;"
(2.) Initially when the writ petition was entertained this Court has been pleased to pass the following order on 22.12.2009: "Heard Sri B.C. Rai for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Dubey for respondents. From the perusal of the letter dated 5.8.2009 along with statement of account, it appears that a huge amount has already been deposited by the petitioner in excess yet without adjusting the same, a sum of Rs. 1,16,470/- has been demanded by means of the letter dated 5.9.2009 and the Executive Engineer has not adjusted the amount already paid by the petitioner in excess. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner was getting the supply from urban feeder but by means of the letter dated 5.9.2009, the Executive Engineer has not directed for supply to the petitioner from rural feeder. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is allowed one month time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner will have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. Until further orders, the demand pursuant to the letter dated 5.9.2009 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) as well operation of the order dated 5.9.2009 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed."
(3.) Today now when after the exchange of pleadings the matter has come up at admission stage, learned counsel for the parties agreed that the case can be decided finally at this stage.;