1 2025:CGHC:16544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2022 of 2019  Mangaldas Patel S/o Kanji Bhai Patel Aged About 53 Years Vinayak Trading Company Indira Timber Market, Bilaspur Road, Bhanpuri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Devram Patel S/o Kanjibhai Patel Aged About 60 Years Flat No. 105, Shubham, Complex Bilaspur Road, Bhanpuri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Apurva Goyel, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08. 04.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 Issue any appropriate writ and directions and further be pleased to quash the Notice dated 24-01- 2019 by declaring it illegal (Annexure-P-1). 10.2 Granting any other relief and the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a saw mill. He would further submit that there is a property dispute SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.09 14:16:22 +0530 2 between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who are real brothers. The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit claiming therein a share according to the family settlement and partition deed. He would contend that there was a family settlement dated 13.04.2015 and 05.09.2016. He would further contend that the saw mill fell in the share of the petitioner and the same is evident from the deed dated 05.09.2016. He would also contend that a complaint was made by respondent No. 2 before the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur for disconnection of electricity and a notice has been issued by respondent No. 1 on 24.01.2019, whereby the petitioner has been directed to submit relevant documents. It is stated that the petitioner is making payment of electricity charges regularly and there is a dispute between two brothers; therefore, the issuance of notice is bad in law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Advocate would submit that the order is appealable according to Regulation 29 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Consumers) Regulations, 2011. 4. Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate would submit that respondent No. 2 is the owner of the disputed property as it was purchased through a registered sale-deed dated 12.04.1996. He would further submit that the petitioner has no right to retain the property and therefore, an application was moved for disconnection of electricity. He would also submit that the application moved by the petitioner for mutation pursuant to the family settlement deed was rejected by the learned Tahsildar vide order dated 06.06.2019. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the 3 documents placed on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been directed to submit relevant documents before respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days; I am not inclined to keep this matter pending. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to submit all relevant documents before respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days, and in turn, respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the issue strictly in accordance with the law within a further period of 45 days, and for a period of 60 days, the interim order dated 28.06.2019 shall remain in force. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant