1 2025:CGHC:19934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3757 of 2022 1 - Ram Kripal Jangde S/o Puluram Jangde Aged About 62 Years R/o 110, Nature City, Sakri, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Avinash Developers Private Limited Avinash Magneto Mall, Raipur, Through Manager Virendra Chandrakar, Magneto Mall, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Executive Engineer, C.S.P.D.C.L. Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director Avinash Magneto Mall, Through Anand Singhaniya, Magneto Mall, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Manager Avinash Magneto Mall, Raipur, Thorugh Virendra Chandrakar, Magneto Mall, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - General Manager Avinash Magneto Mall, Raipur, Through Shiven Anand, Magneto Mall, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : - “10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate order by directing the respondent no.2 to at least the electricity supply to the petitioner shop as early as possible. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate order by directing the respondent no.1 to fulfill the terms and condition of the agreement (Annexure P/1) 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 to operate a business under the brand name Ximi Vogue at Avinash Magneto Mall, Raipur, for a period of three years, with an option for extension. The petitioner was misled by the staff of respondent No. 1 about the business environment of mall, including claims of restructuring the food court, attracting popular brands like Calvin Klein, and drawing large crowds, especially on the second floor. Despite these promises, no restructuring or increased footfall occurred. The petitioner, persuaded by these representations, agreed to rent a shop on the second floor for a monthly rent of Rs. 85,000/- to 90,000/-, along with additional staff costs. However, the sales of shop were far below expectations, generating only Rs. 70,000/- to 1,20,000/- per month. The petitioner, who had taken a loan of Rs. 40-50 Lakhs to finance the business, continued operating with the hope that the food court would be established, boosting sales. Despite repeated requests for updates on the food court and for relocating to the ground floor, the petitioner faced neglect, misrepresentation, and basic service interruptions from the respondents, including disconnection of electricity. The petitioner has suffered significant financial losses and sent a legal notice to respondent No. 1 on 15.07.2022, but no action was taken. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 has failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties, causing the petitioner significant harm. Specifically, respondent No. 1 has unlawfully disconnected the electricity supply to the shop of petitioner, thereby hindering the petitioner from running the business and resulting in substantial financial losses. Furthermore, the petitioner, who took a bank loan to establish and operate the business in reliance on the agreement, is suffering severe financial hardship due to the failure of respondent to fulfill their obligations. The counsel also contends that respondent No. 1 has been sending frequent and unjustified notices demanding payment, in an illegal manner. Additionally, the staff of respondent No. 1 misrepresented the business prospects to the petitioner, falsely promising profits of Rs. 9-10 Lakhs per month, which led the petitioner to incur losses. The counsel argues that the petitioner has been deprived of his constitutional rights due to these acts of misrepresentation, non-fulfillment of contractual obligations, and wrongful actions by the respondents. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the allegations made against them are unfounded and without merit. respondent No. 2, who is merely responsible for providing electricity to the shop of petitioner, has acted within the scope of its legal rights and obligations. It is submitted that the disconnection of electricity was not arbitrary or intentional but was done in accordance with the procedures in place due to the failure of petitioner to fulfill certain financial obligations towards the electricity supply. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further contends that the disconnection was a result 4 of the petitioner’s own non-payment and failure to resolve the outstanding dues, which is a matter distinct from the contractual dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Regarding the prayer for restoration of electricity, respondent No. 2 asserts that it is ready to restore the supply once the dues are settled by the petitioner, and there has been no malafide intention behind any of the actions taken. Furthermore, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 denies any involvement in the alleged misrepresentations made by the staff of respondent No. 1, as the matters raised pertain solely to the terms of the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. respondent No. 2 also submits that the issues raised by the petitioner are primarily contractual in nature and should be addressed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, without involving respondent No. 2 in the disputes arising from the terms of the business agreement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed along with the petitioner with atmost circumspection. 6. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions primarily against respondent No. 1 to fulfill the terms and conditions of a business agreement and against respondent No. 2 to restore electricity supply to the shop of petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection, this Court finds that the issues raised by the petitioner predominantly arise out of a contractual dispute between private parties, namely the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The reliefs sought, including fulfillment of contractual obligations and 5 compensation for alleged misrepresentation, pertain to matters which require examination of disputed questions of fact, terms of the agreement, and evidentiary appreciation, none of which fall within the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As regards the prayer for restoration of electricity supply by respondent No. 2, it is noted that respondent No. 2 has clarified that the electricity supply was disconnected due to non-payment of dues and that it is willing to restore the same upon clearance of the outstanding amount. This being a matter of service and billing, also falls outside the purview of writ relief where there exists an alternative remedy. This Court, therefore, refrains from entering into the merits of the dispute. The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies before a competent civil forum, in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The prescribed authority shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE