IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
CAUSE
TITLE
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut
Vitaran Company Limited.
DECLARATION
(Under Rule 25
of Chapter X)
The copies as required by Rule 25 of Chapter X of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh Rules, 2008, have served upon Clerk of
office of the Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra
Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited at PM
on 2017 in Jabalpur.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017 (O)
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut
Vitaran
Company Limited
I
N D E X
|
S. No.
|
Description of documents
|
Annexure
|
Pages
|
|
1.
|
Index
|
|
1
|
|
2.
|
Chronology of Events
|
|
2 TO 6
|
|
3.
|
Memo of writ petition with
affidavit
|
|
7 TO 20
|
|
4.
|
List of documents.
|
|
21
|
|
5.
|
Copy of petitioner deposited
an amount of Rs.31,735/- dated 24.12.2012
|
P-1
|
22
|
|
6.
|
Copy of petitioner deposited
an amount of Rs.1,60,138/- Vide Receipt dated 24.06.2015
|
P-2
|
23
|
|
7.
|
Copy of the Order dated 17.03.2016
|
P-3
|
24 TO
26
|
|
8.
|
Copy of the Order dated 25.07.2016
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradessh, Principal Seat at
Jabalpur in the matter of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NORTH DIVISION) Vs PRESIDING
OFFICER, in the file of Writ Petition No.8191 of 2016
|
P-4
|
27 TO 29
|
|
9.
|
Copy of the Representation
dated 13.10.2016
|
P-5
|
30
& 31
|
|
10.
|
Copy of the
reminder dated 18.11.2016
|
P-6
|
32
|
|
11.
|
Copy of the representation dated
21.04.2016
|
P-7
|
33
& 34
|
|
12.
|
Copy of the Legal Notice dated
08.02.2017
|
P-8
|
35 TO
41
|
|
13.
|
Copy of the representation
dated 01.03.2017
|
P-9
|
42
|
|
14.
|
Copy of the Memo dated
10.06.2013
|
P-10
|
43
|
|
15.
|
Copy of the application dated
30.09.2013
|
P-11
|
44
|
|
16.
|
Copy of the RTI application dated 23.06.2017
|
P-12
|
45
|
|
17.
|
Copy of the communication dated
04.09.2017
|
P-13
|
47
|
|
18.
|
Copy of the reply dated
09.09.2017/ 11.09.2017
|
P-14
|
48
|
|
19.
|
VAKALATNAMA
|
|
49
|
|
20.
|
COURT FEE
|
|
50
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF MADHY PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
CAUSE
TITLE
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut
Vitaran Company Limited
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
|
S.No
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1.
|
24.09.2012
|
Though on 24.09.2012
and 04.06.2013 a spot inspection of the premises was carried out.
|
|
2.
|
24.12.2012
|
In the first spot
inspection dated 24.09.2012 assessment of Rs.63,470/- against M/s Sheela
Bakery was made against which petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.31,735/-
dated 24.12.2012 Vide Annexure P-1
|
|
3.
|
22.02.2013
|
The said assessment
order was assailed by petitioner but was negatived by order dated 22.02.2013
on the ground that the appeal is premature.
|
|
4.
|
04.06.2013
|
Though on 24.09.2012
and 04.06.2013 a spot inspection of the premises was carried out. That on
04.06.2013 second spot inspection was carried out of both the units viz., M/s
Sheela Bakery having a load of 20 horsepower and M/s Asian Bakery having a
load of 25 horsepower.
|
|
5.
|
10.06.2013
|
A memo dated 10.06.2013
was issued by the respondent whereby petitioner was called upon to deposit a
sum of Rs.18,972/- with the Bank.
|
|
6.
|
30.09.2013
|
Petitioner made an
application dated 30.09.2013 as to demanding mode of calculation, but the
same was not replied.
|
|
7.
|
24.06.2015
|
In the second spot
inspection dated 04.06.2013 assessment of Rs.63,470/- against M/s Sheela
Bakery was made against which petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,60,138/-
Vide Receipt dated 24.06.2015 filed as Annexure
P-2,
|
|
8.
|
19.05.2015
|
A joint assessment was
made and an amount of Rs.6,20,840/- was directed to be recovered. After the
correction, final recovery order of Rs.3,20,276/- was issued on 19.05.2015.
|
|
9.
|
19.05.2015
|
The Appellate Authority
were in seisin with an appeal preferred by petitioner against
recovery/assessment order dated 19.05.2015; whereby, petitioner was called
upon to pay Rs.3,20,276/-. The Appellate Authority as was evident from the
order has interfered with the demand on the ground that joint demand has been
raised by clubbing the Electricity consumption of two different service
meters viz., Service No.3-93-699147 and 3-93-209053. Apparent it is from the
facts on record that there exists two factories viz., M/s Sheela Bakery and
M/s Asian Bakery in one premises having two separate service meters
viz.,3-93-699147 and 3-93-209053.
|
|
10.
|
17.03.2016
|
Evidently, it was a joint demand
order made on the basis of the assessment dated 04.06.2013, was issued. In an
appeal preferred by petitioner, the Appellate Authority found that since no
case under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been made out by the
respondent No. 3 to 5 and a demand was raised by combining loads of both the
units, allowed the appeal.
|
|
11.
|
03.05.2016
|
Respondent
No. 3 to 5 had Challenged in the above petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India was to an order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Appellate
Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
|
|
12.
|
25.07.2016
|
Order dated 25.07.2016 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in
the matter of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NORTH DIVISION) Vs PRESIDING OFFICER, in
the file of Writ Petition No.8191 of 2016
|
|
13.
|
13.10.2016
|
Petitioner raised a voice by
demanding the refund of amount recovered by respondent No. 3 to 5 vide his
representation dated 13.10.2016
|
|
14.
|
18.11.2016
|
further through a reminder dated
18.11.2016 but respondent did not bother to hear his pain and sufferings.
|
|
15.
|
21.04.2016
|
Petitioner submitted anther
representation dated 21.04.2016 for refund of amount already deposited.
|
|
16.
|
08.02.2017
|
Respondents were therefore
called upon to kindly Refund of an
amount of Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with
interest recovered under the provision of
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
|
|
17.
|
01.03.2017
|
Petitioner submitted
another representation dated 01.03.2017 for refund of amount already
deposited. It was also submitted that he should be given connection afresh on
the premises of M/s Asian Bakery as he is trying to get the matter resolved
with his father. It is humbly submitted that the leased plot upon which the
Asian Bakery was situated was earlier leased out M/s Asian Enterprises,
thereafter the same was transferred in the name of M/s Asian Bakery.
|
|
18.
|
23.06.2017
|
Petitioner filed an
application under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 regarding information as to what action was taken by respondent to
petitioner’s applications dated 21.04.2017 & 25.07.2016.
|
|
19.
|
|
Since the information was not
provided to the petitioner he preferred an appeal to the appellate authority.
|
|
20.
|
04.09.2017
|
Respondent authorities are
illegally demanding the lease deed of 400 square feet land, which is
impermissible under the Law as the petitioner has not sought any new
connection. He only submitted the mutation of name.
|
|
21.
|
09.09.2017/ 11.09.2017
|
Petitioner duly replied
the same and submitted the true facts as to change of name from M/s Asian
Bakery to his own name so also seeking rules regarding two connections in the
same name.
|
|
22.
|
|
Petitioner preferred a
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against
in-action on the part of respondent authority in not refunding the amount of
Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with interest
deposited under the provision of
sub-section (2) Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
Format No. 7
(Chapter X, Rule 23)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
CAUSE
TITLE
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI,
Aged about 47 years, S/o
Mr. Anand Kumar Kundnani, Occupation – Business, Propertier - M/S Sheela Bakery, Shed No. -II, Industrial Area,
Adhartal, Jabalpur, (Madhya Pradesh), R/o Shanti Nagar, Damoh Naka,
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), BSNL – 94253-87838
Versus
RESPONDENTS
:1. Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut
Vitaran
Company Limited, Through The Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, PO: Vidyut
Nagar, Rampur, Jabalpur – 482 008 (Madhya Pradesh)
2. Executive Engineer,
(North Division),
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, Adhartal, Jabalpur – 482 004, (Madhya Pradesh)
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, Adhartal, Jabalpur – 482 004, (Madhya Pradesh)
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India).
1. Particulars of the Cause/ Order
against which the petition is made:
(1) Date of Order /
Notification/ Circular / Policy/ Decision Etc. : NIL
(2)
Passed in (Case Or File Number)
: NIL
(3)
Passed by (Name and Designation
of the Court, Authority, Tribunal Etc.) : NIL
(4) Subject –matter in
brief : By preferring this petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of
India invoking the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court
whereby calling in question the legality, validity, propriety and correctness
of the in-action on the part of respondent authority in not refunding the
amount of Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with
interest deposited under the provision of
sub-section (2) Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 inspite of the
fact that respondents’ case was rejected vide Order dated 25.07.2016 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the
matter of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NORTH DIVISION) Vs PRESIDING OFFICER, in the file
of Writ Petition No.8191 of 2016 confirming the Order dated 17.03.2016 passed
by the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity
Act, 2003. The point involved in this petition is that when the final
assessment Order was set –aside by the duly constituted appellate authority and
upheld by this Hon’ble High, whether the petitioner is entitled to refund the
amount deposited by him in terms of sub-section (2) Section 127 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
2.
A declaration that no proceeding on the same subject matter has
been previously instituted in any Court, Authority or Tribunal, if instituted,
the Status or result thereof, along with copy of the Order:
Order
dated 25.07.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal
Seat at Jabalpur in the matter of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NORTH DIVISION) Vs
PRESIDING OFFICER, in the file of Writ Petition No.8191 of 2016 confirming the
Order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under
Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Details of the remedied
exhausted :
The petitioner declares
that he has availed all statutory and other remedies.
4. Delay, if any, in filing the
petition and explanation therefor :
From pillar to post petitioner was knocking every door for the redressal
of his grievances but at the end petitioner surrenders himself before this
Hon’ble High Court to seek justice as litigation
is the last resort when government authority completely disregard the rule of
law.
5. Facts of the Case :
1.
Petitioner is a
peace loving national of India and entitled for the all the benefit and
fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India.
Respondents are the instrumentality of state within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble High Court.
2. Respondents had Challenged in the writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India was to an order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the
Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The Appellate Authority were in seisin with an appeal preferred by petitioner
against recovery/assessment order dated 19.05.2015; whereby, petitioner was
called upon to pay Rs.3,20,276/-. The Appellate Authority as was evident from
the order has interfered with the demand on the ground that joint demand has
been raised by clubbing the Electricity consumption of two different service
meters viz., Service No.3-93-699147 and 3-93-209053. Apparent it is from the
facts on record that there exists two factories viz., M/s Sheela Bakery and M/s
Asian Bakery in one premises having two separate service meters
viz.,3-93-699147 and 3-93-209053. Though on 24.09.2012 and 04.06.2013 a spot
inspection of the premises was carried out. In the first spot inspection dated
24.09.2012 assessment of Rs.63,470/- against M/s Sheela Bakery was made against
which petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.31,735/- dated 24.12.2012 Vide Annexure P-1 and Rs.1,60,138/-
Vide Receipt dated 24.06.2015 filed as Annexure
P-2, total Rs.1,91,873/-. The said assessment order was assailed by petitioner
but was negatived by order dated 22.02.2013 on the ground that the appeal is
premature. That on 04.06.2013 second spot inspection was carried out of both
the units viz., M/s Sheela Bakery having a load of 20 horsepower and M/s Asian
Bakery having a load of 25 horsepower. A joint assessment was made and an
amount of Rs.6,20,840/- was directed to be recovered. After the correction,
final recovery order of Rs.3,20,276/- was issued on 19.05.2015. Evidently, it
was a joint demand order made on the basis of the assessment dated 04.06.2013,
was issued. In an appeal preferred by petitioner, the Appellate Authority found
that since no case under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been made
out by the respondents and a demand was raised by combining loads of both the
units, allowed the appeal. Copy of the Order dated 17.03.2016 is filed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-3.
3. Section 126 of the Act of 2003 envisages that if on an inspection
of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets,
machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records
maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that
such person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, he shall
provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges
payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. It however
stipulates that after taking steps as contemplated under sub-section (2) (3)
and (4) of Section 126 if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that
unathorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made
for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has
taken place. In the case at hand evidently there is no conclusion arrived at by
the Assessing Officer as to unauthorized use of electricity. The Concerning
Authority had after carrying out spot inspection of the premises clubbed the
consumption of electricity by two different units and has raised a joint
demand. Since there is no finding as to unauthorized use of electricity the
Appellate Authority in the considered opinion of this Hon’ble High Court was
well within its jurisdiction to hold that the proceedings cannot be said to be
under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 and since the proceedings were not under
Section 126 of the Act of 2003, the respondent No. 3 to 5 were not justified in
effecting the recovery by taking into consideration the assessment of joint
load. The impugned order when tested on the anvil of the provisions contained
under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be faulted with as would
warrant any interference. Petition therefore failed. Copy of the Order dated 25.07.2016
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur
in the matter of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NORTH DIVISION) Vs PRESIDING OFFICER, in
the file of Writ Petition No.8191 of 2016 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4.
4. Petitioner raised a voice by demanding the refund of amount
recovered by respondents vide his representation dated 13.10.2016 and further
through a reminder dated 18.11.2016 but respondent authorities did not bother
to hear his pain and sufferings. Copy of the Representation dated 13.10.2016
and reminder 18.11.2016 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5 &
P-6. Petitioner submitted another representation dated 21.04.2016 for
refund of amount already deposited. Copy of the representation dated 21.04.2016
is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-7.
5. Respondents were therefore called upon to kindly Refund of an amount of Rs.31,735/- and
Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with interest recovered under the
provision of Section 126 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. Copy of the Legal Notice dated 08.02.2017 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-8.
Petitioner submitted another representation dated 01.03.2017 for refund of
amount already deposited. It was also submitted that his name should be mutated
on the premises of M/s Asian Bakery as he is trying to get the matter resolved
with his father. It is humbly submitted that the leased plot upon which the
Asian Bakery was situated was earlier leased out M/s Asian Enterprises,
thereafter the same was transferred in the name of M/s Asian Bakery. Copy of
the representation dated 01.03.2017 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-9.
6. A memo dated 10.06.2013 was issued by the respondent whereby
petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.18,972/- with the Bank. Copy
of the Memo dated 10.06.2013 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-10. Petitioner made
an application dated 30.09.2013 as to demanding mode of calculation, but the
same was not replied. Copy of the application dated 30.09.2013 is filed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-11.
7. Petitioner filed an application under the provisions of Section 6
(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding information as to what
action was taken by respondent to petitioner’s applications dated 21.04.2017
& 25.07.2016. Copy of the RTI application dated 23.06.2017 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-12.
Since the information was not provided to the petitioner he preferred an appeal
to the appellate authority.
8. Respondent authorities are illegally demanding the lease deed of
400 square feet land, which is impermissible under the Law as the petitioner
has not sought any new connection. He only submitted the mutation of name. Copy
of the communication dated 04.09.2017 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-13. Petitioner duly
replied the same and submitted the true facts as to change of name from M/s
Asian Bakery to his own name so also seeking rules regarding two connections in
the same name. Copy of the reply dated 09.09.2017/ 11.09.2017 is filed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-14. Petitioner
is challenging the most arbitrary and illegal in-action on the part of the
respondents authorities on the following grounds amongst others :
6. Grounds urged :
A.
For that, The point involved in this petition is that when the
final assessment Order was set –aside by the duly constituted appellate
authority and upheld by this Hon’ble High, whether the petitioner is entitled
to refund the amount deposited by him in terms of sub-section (2) Section 127
of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 127, read as under :
“127. Appeal to appellate authority.- (1) Any
person aggrieved by a final order made under section 126 may, within thirty
days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner
and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to
an appellate authority as may be prescribed.
(2) No appeal against an order
of assessment under sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal
to *[half] of the assessed amount is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft
with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed
along with the appeal.
(3) The appellate authority
referred to in sub-section (1) shall dispose of the appeal after hearing the
parties and pass appropriate order and send copy of the order to the assessing
officer and the appellant.
(4) The order of the appellate
authority referred to in sub-section (1) passed under sub-section (3) shall be
final.
(5) No appeal shall lie to the
appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) against the final order made
with the consent of the parties.
(6) When a person
defaults in making payment of assessed amount, he, in addition to the assessed
amount shall be liable to pay, on the expiry of thirty days from the date of
order of assessment, an amount of interest at the rate of sixteen per cent. per
annum compounded every six months.
B.
For that, Respondents are bound to refund
of an amount of Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with
interest recovered under the provision of
Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Petitioner submitted another
representation dated 01.03.2017 for refund of amount already deposited. So far
as the interest part is concerned the respondent charges 16% interest as per
section 127 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the same shall be applied for
refund also. It is humbly submitted that the leased plot upon which the Asian
Bakery was situated was earlier leased out M/s Asian Enterprises, thereafter
the same was transferred in the name of M/s Asian Bakery.
C.
For that, A memo dated 10.06.2013 was illegally
issued by the respondent whereby petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of
Rs.18,972/- with the Bank. Petitioner made an application dated 30.09.2013 as
to demanding mode of calculation, but the same was not replied.
D. For
that, Petitioner filed an application under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding information as to what action was
taken by respondent to petitioner’s applications dated 21.04.2017 &
25.07.2016. Since the information was not provided to the petitioner he
preferred an appeal to the appellate authority.
E. For
that, Respondent authorities are illegally demanding the lease deed of 400
square feet land, which is impermissible under the Law as the petitioner has
not sought any new connection. He only submitted the mutation of name.
Petitioner duly replied the same and submitted the true facts as to change of
name from M/s Asian Bakery to his own name so also seeking rules regarding two
connections in the same name.
F. For that, The respondents wrongly mentioned that the
recovery/assessment order has been issued against to factories the book advised
dated 23-07-2012 and letter dated 22-04-2014 were issued to M/s Sheela Bakery,
by mentioning to services connections, which shows the clubbed billing of to
different connection, therefore the petitioners objection was sustained. It is
humbly submitted that Section 145 of Electricity Act bars the
jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect
of any matter which any Assessing Officer referred to in Section 126 or an Appellate Authority
referred to in Section 127
of the Electricity Act or the Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Electricity Act is empowered to determine. Section 126 of Electricity Act empowers the
Assessing Officer to make assessment in respect of unauthorized use of
electricity.
7. Relief Prayed for :
From the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner prays for
the following writ or directions :
(i)
To call for the
records in relation to subject matter of lis
for its kind perusal.
(ii)
To issue
appropriate writ or direction that the petitioner is entitled to refund the
amount deposited by him in terms of sub-section (2) Section 127 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
(iii)
To issue
appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing refund of the
amount of Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with
interest deposited under the provision of
sub-section (2) Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 with interest @
12 % per annum from the date of Order passed by this Hon’ble High Court till
the actual date of realizations.
(iv)
To issue
appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
authorities to provide mutation of name in accordance with Law in premises.
(v)
Cost of this
petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.
Any other writ or direction
deems fit and proper may also be granted looking to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
8. Interim Order / Writ, if prayed
for :
In view of the facts and circumstance of the case during pendency
of instant writ petition directing not to take coercive action against electricity
connection in the premises of the petitioner, in the larger interest of
justice.
9.
Documents relied on but not in possession of the petitioner :
All the
relevant material and original records in relation to subject matter in dispute
is lying with respondent authorities which may kindly be requisitioned by the
Hon’ble High Court for its kind perusal.
10.
Caveat
:
That, no notice of
lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
CAUSE
TITLE
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS : Madhya Pradesh Poorv
Kshetra Vidyut
Vitaran
Company Limited
AFFIDAVIT
I, LAKHAMI CHAND KUNDNANI,
Aged about 47 years, S/o Mr. Anand Kumar Kundnani, Occupation – Business,
Properiter - M/S Sheela Bakery, Shed No. -II,
Industrial Area, Adhartal, Jabalpur , Jabalpur , (Madhya Pradesh), R/o
Shanti Nagar, Damoh Naka, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), BSNL – 94253-87838, the
above named deponent, solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1.
That I am the Petitioner in the
above mentioned writ petition and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to
in the writ Petition.
2.
That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the accompanying writ petition
are true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on
legal advice, which I believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no
part is false.
3.
That the Annexure No(s). P-1 to P-14 to the accompanying writ petition
are true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexures with
their respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof.
PLACE
: JABALPUR
DATED
: DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, LAKHAMI CHAND KUNDNANI, the above
named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the affidavit
above are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed
or falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS : Madhya Pradesh Poorv
Kshetra Vidyut
Vitaran
Company Limited
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description of document
|
Date of document
|
Original copy
|
Number of page
|
|
1.
|
Petitioner deposited an amount
of Rs.31,735/-
|
24.12.2012
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
2.
|
Petitioner deposited an amount
of Rs.1,60,138/- Vide Receipt
|
24.06.2015
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
3.
|
Order passed by appelleate Authority
|
17.03.2016
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
4.
|
Order passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Madhya Pradessh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the matter of
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NORTH DIVISION) Vs PRESIDING OFFICER, in the file of Writ
Petition No.8191 of 2016
|
25.07.2016
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
5.
|
Representation submitted by
petitioner
|
13.10.2016
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
6.
|
Reminder
submitted by petitioner
|
18.11.2016
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
7.
|
Representation submitted by
petitioner
|
21.04.2016
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
8.
|
Legal Notice sent by petitioner through his Counsel
|
08.02.2017
|
Xerox
|
07 (Seven)
|
|
9.
|
Representation submitted by
petitioner
|
01.03.2017
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
10.
|
Memo issued by respondent
|
10.06.2013
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
11.
|
Application submitted by petitioner
|
30.09.2013
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
12.
|
RTI application submitted by
petitioner
|
23.06.2017
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
13.
|
Communication issued by respondent
auhotities
|
04.09.2017
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
14.
|
Reply submitted by petitioner
|
09.09.2017/ 11.09.2017
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
APPENDIX 1-A
FORMAT OF V A K A L A T N A M A
[Rules
4 (1) of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961]
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut
Vitaran Company Limited
I, the petitioner named below do hereby appoint, engage and
authorize advocate (s) named below to
appear, act and plead in aforesaid case / proceeding, which shall include
applications for restoration, setting aside for ex - parte orders, corrections,
modifications, review and recall of orders assed in these proceedings, in this
Court or in any other Court in which the same may be tried / heard / proceeded
with and also in the appellate, revisional or executing Court in respect of the
proceedings arising from this case / proceedings as per agreed terms and
conditions and authorize them to sign and file
pleadings , appeals, cross objections, petitions, applications,
affidavits, or the other documents as may be deemed necessary and proper for
the prosecution / defence of the said
case in all its stages and also agrees to ratify and confirm acts done by them
as if done by me.
In
witness whereof I do hereby set my hands to these presents, the contents of
which have been duly understood by me, this – day of ----------------- 2017 at
Jabalpur.
Particulars (in block letters) of each Party Executing Vakalatnama
|
Name and father s / Husband s Name
|
Registered Address
|
E-Mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if any)
|
Status in the case
|
Full Signature/ **Thumb
Impression
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
(6)
|
|
|
PETITIONER
|
|
Accepted
Particulars (in block letters) of each Advocate Accepting
Vakalatnama
|
|
Full Name &
Enrollment No. in State Bar Council
|
Address for Service
|
E-mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if
any)
|
Full Signature
|
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
|
1.
|
VIJAY RAGHAV SINGH
EN. No. M. P. /
ADV / 1554 / 2003
|
SEAT NO. 93, GOLDEN
JUBILEE BUILDING, CHAMBER NO. 317, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES,
JABALPUR 482 001
|
IDEA 98261-43925
|
|
|
|
2.
|
VIJAY KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA, EN. No. M. P. / ADV /
949/ 2006
|
SEAT NO. 81, HALL NO.
1, FIRST FLOOR, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
|
NIL
|
RIM 93015 04927
AIRTEL 97554 82448
|
|
|
3.
|
AMIT KUMAR KHARE,
EN. No. M. P. /
ADV / 1291/ 2006
|
HOUSE NO. 1483 / 17,
SARASWATI COLONY, BEHIND PARIJAT BUILDING, CHERITAL, JABALPUR 482 001
|
NIL
|
BSNL 94258 66726
LAND LINE 0761 - 2345 005
|
|
*Score out
which is not applicable
** The thumb
impression shall be attested by a literate person giving above particulars.
