1 2025:CGHC:17836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3368 of 2022 1 - M/s Spark Electricals Throughb Its Proprietor Nisar Ali Qureshi Son Of Shri Sarvar Ali Qureshi, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Near Masjid, Infront Of Sbi Atm, Mai Road, Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur Area, Tifra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Chief Engineer Posted And Working In The Office Of Executive Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur Area, Tifra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur Area, Tifra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Division Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.23 10:57:57 +0530 2 6 - Assistant Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Sub Division Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 6 : Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/04/2025 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in in-spite of order passed by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022 in WPC No.1379 of 2022, the respondents are directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner but they have not decided the representation filed by the petitioner till date, therefore, the petitioner has again filed this petition in which notices have been issued and reply has also been filed and now, the petitioner has prayed for direction to be issued the respondent authorities to decide the representation within 15 days. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6 submits that in the reply they have clearly and categorically stated that the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the arbitration clause 3 under the agreement between the parties and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any of clause or having any dispute, the petitioner has to approach before the authority under the arbitration clause. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application/representation before the authorities concerned, in- turn, the authorities concerned are directed to decide the same as per provisions applicable under the arbitration clause in this case within a period of 10 days from the date of production of copy of this days. 5. It is made clear the this Court has not made any opinion in the merits of this case and the authority concerned are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after taking due care of the documents filed by the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi