1 2025:CGHC:28483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 131 of 2021 1 - Suraj Singh Thakur S/o Shri Prahlad Singh Thakur Aged About 36 Years Residence Of Ward No. 12, House No. 289, Chandi Mandir Road Tendulotha, Behind Krishi Mandi, Bagbahra Tahsil And P.S. Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Daganiya, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Superintending Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mahasamund Division, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Engineer (Repair And Production) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Assistant Engineer (Repair And Production) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate appears through video conferencing Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.01 15:25:58 +0530 2 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned endorsing in the application dated 04.12.2020 (Annexure P-8). 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the application of petitioner by symathetic manner and according to the Rule 56 of the Electricity Rules 2003 and jurisdiction. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given. 2. Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appearing for the petitioner would submit that an illegal demand to pay the electricity bill was raised against the late Roopa Bai. He would further submit that a demand notice was issued vide Ex.-P/8 dated 04.12.2020. He would further submit that the petitioner made a representation before the respondents on 04.12.2020 to consider his grievance, but no heed has been paid. He would also submit that the demand notice Ex.-P/8 may be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to decide the pending representation dated 04.12.2020. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the amount of the electricity bill has already been paid by the petitioner. He would also submit that the representation made by the petitioner would be decided in accordance with the law. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the balance electricity bill with the respondents, there is no need to pass any order with regard to the quashment of Annexure P/8. 3 6. With regard to the pending representation made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to decide it expeditiously strictly in accordance with the law within a period of 90 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti