Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balramdas Pandey vs Rajnesh Pandey Judgement Given By: ... on 2 December, 2013
Conc. No.200/2009
2.12.2013
Shri Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Petitioner had approached this Court vide Writ Petition No.5930/2007, seeking direction to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board to consider his request for permanent electricity connection to facilitate operation of 5 Horse Power motor-pump for irrigation.
The Writ Petition was disposed of on 27.8.2008 with a direction to respondents to consider the claim of petitioner.
Alleging non-compliance of order-dated 27.8.2008, present contempt petition is filed for initiating action against the respondents.
Respondent no.2 has responded to the show cause. It is urged that in pursuance to direction in Writ Petition, steps were taken and estimate was prepared and communicated to the petitioner on 25.9.2008, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the installation charges to the tune of Rs.16,287.64. It is urged that the petitioner did not deposit the amount as would have facilitated the permanent connection.
It further appears from the pleadings on record that the petitioner has one more 5 Horse Power electricity connection bearing service connection no.534804-99-13-170010 under Tariff Clause 312.
In view whereof, no case is made out of wilful disobedience as would warrant an action against the respondents.
Consequently, the proceedings are dropped. Rule Nisi discharged.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod