Ramchandra Mishra Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.orderr.k. merathia, j.1. heard the parties.2. the grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being given a fresh domestic electrical connection on the ground that there are dues of rs. 14,666/- on the previous occupier of the premises being consumer no. 11-13/52 11-26-jf-86 without disclosing the name of the said consumer. it is further submitted that even the application form has not been accepted by the respondents. learned counsel then submitted that in-spite of judgment of the hon'ble supreme court rendered in isha marbel's case followed by this court in several judgments. the officers of the board is not acting, as per those judgments.3. learned counsel for the board submitted that the petitioner should make a fresh representation before respondent no. 3, who will look into the matter and do the needful,4. in the circumstances, if the petitioner makes a fresh representation before the respondent no. 3 he will look into the matter and take a decision on that. if the authority finds that petitioner has got no concern or connection whatsoever with the previous occupier and he is not obliged to pay the dues of the earlier occupier under any agreement, he will grant a fresh.....

Judgment:

ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being given a fresh domestic electrical connection on the ground that there are dues of Rs. 14,666/- on the previous occupier of the premises being consumer No. 11-13/52 11-26-JF-86 without disclosing the name of the said consumer. It is further submitted that even the application form has not been accepted by the respondents. Learned counsel then submitted that in-spite of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Isha Marbel's case followed by this Court in several judgments. The officers of the Board is not acting, as per those judgments.

3. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that the petitioner should make a fresh representation before respondent No. 3, who will look into the matter and do the needful,

4. In the circumstances, if the petitioner makes a fresh representation before the respondent No. 3 he will look into the matter and take a decision on that. If the authority finds that petitioner has got no concern or connection whatsoever with the previous occupier and he is not obliged to pay the dues of the earlier occupier under any agreement, he will grant a fresh electrical connection to the petitioner if all the formalities are complied by him. If, he finds that petitioner is not entitled to the electrical connection, he will communicate reasons there of to him. This exercise should be completed within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such representation.

5. It is surprising how the officers of the Board allowed the aforesaid arrears to accumulate against the erstwhile consumer. They are directed to realize the dues, if any, from the concerned consumer, in accordance with law.

6. It is made clear, that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

7. With these observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of.