Ramesh Karanjkar Vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court 24 Oct 2024 Writ Petition No. 2945 Of 2024 (M/S) (2024) 10 UK CK 0068
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 2945 Of 2024 (M/S)

Hon'ble Bench

Pankaj Purohit, J

Advocates

Jitendra Chaudhary, Devendra Singh, Nidhi Thapa, Suyash Pant, Dharmendra Barthwal

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred
  • Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 42(5), 42(6)

Judgement Text

Translate:

Pankaj Purohit, J

1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for a direction to respondent no.2-Managing Director, UPCL to

decide the representations/complaints dated 08.09.2023 and 12.08.2024 moved by the petitioner within a stipulated period fixed by this Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was issued wrong bills for excessive demand by the respondents-Electricity

Department. Against those inflated bills, petitioner moved an application in the Consumer Redressal Forum under Section 42 Sub Section (5) of The

Electricity Act, 2003. The Consumer Redressal Forum partly allowed the complaints of the petitioner vide its judgment and order dated 28.01.2022.

Since the relief was not completely granted to the petitioner, petitioner moved an appeal to the Ombudsman under Section 42 Sub Section (6) of the

Electricity Act, 2003. The said appeal was disposed of by the Ombudsman mainly on the ground that Consumer Redressal Forum was not meant for

the petitioner because petitioner is a special category consumer i.e. employee of the UPCL therefore, he cannot submit complaint to the Consumer

Redressal Forum. However a liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the Chief Engineer, Commercial, Dehradun or some

other competent officer of the UPCL. Thereafter the petitioner moved the complaint dated 08.09.2023 and 12.08.2024 annexure nos.10 and 16 to the

writ petition to the respondent no.2.

4. The grievance of the petitioner, by means of this writ petition is only limited to the extent that said applications are still undecided and, therefore, he

wants interference of this Court for a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the complaint of the petitioner, expeditiously.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the grievance raised by the petitioner, inasmuch as, only a direction is sought by the

petitioner for decision of his complaint logically within a stipulated period.

6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Respondent no.2 is directed to decide the complaints of the petitioner dated

08.09.2023 and 12.08.2024 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by a speaking and reasoned

order.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Rules: Degree Title Not Mandatory If Core Subject Studied
Dec
07
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Rules: Degree Title Not Mandatory If Core Subject Studied
Read More
ITAT Slams Sexist Assumptions in Tax Order, Upholds Women’s Expertise in Business Commission Case
Dec
07
2025

Court News

ITAT Slams Sexist Assumptions in Tax Order, Upholds Women’s Expertise in Business Commission Case
Read More