Kiran Das vs Apdcl (Assam Power Distribution ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 655 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010030002021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/1081/2021

            KIRAN DAS
            S/O LATE KAYA RAM DAS, R/O BAITAPARA, P.S. PALASHBARI, DIST.
            KAMRUP, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            APDCL (ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD AND 2 ORS
            TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, BIJULEE BHAWAN,
            PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI 781001

            2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

             APDCL
             (ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.) BIJULEE BHAWAN
             PALTANBAZAR
             GUWAHATI 781001

            3:SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

             MIRZA ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION
             APDCL (LAR)
             MIRZA
             KAMRUP (ASSAM) 78112

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M K SHARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL




                                          BEFORE
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/2

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
                                          ORDER

24.02.2021 Heard Mr. M. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. K. Phukan, the learned counsel is present representing the APDCL.

Against a total plot of land measuring 2 Katha covered by Dag No. 1195 of K. P. Patta No. 254 of village - Sarpara, Mouza - Chayani in the district of Kamrup, 10 Lechas of land is under possession of the present petitioner along with his residential house. The rest 1 Katha 10 Lecahas of land was the subject matter of a decree in Title Execution No. 3/15 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon. The residential house of the petitioner extended beyond 10 Lechas of land and as such though the petitioner is neither the judgment debtor nor a party in the suit, the officials from the executing court requested the APDCL officials to disconnect the power supply to the premises covered by the said 2 Kathas of land. After disconnection of the power supply, the execution proceeding was completed however, the power supply was not restored causing inconvenience to the petitioner. Though there was representation made by the petitioner but the power supply is yet to be restored.

Considering the same, the petitioner even approached the executing court by filing an application and the Misc. (J) Case No. 162/18 was disposed of on 04.02.2020 wherein the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondent APDCL for restoration of the electricity supply. Though the relief sought for by the petitioner was disallowed but the petitioner was granted the liberty to approach before the officials of the APDCL for restoration of the power supply.

Ms. Phukan shall take necessary instruction and for that purpose, a copy of this writ petition shall be served on her and let this matter be listed for Motion on 03.03.2021.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant