1 2025:CGHC:39135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4395 of 2024 Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav W/o Late Mahettar Lal Yadav Aged About 74 Years Resident Of Village Jamkor, Post Devri, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 06-08-2025) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Director Bilaspur Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Engineer (O / M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Junior Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. CK Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court has passed the order on 03.09.2024 on merits in this writ petition. Since the husband name of the petitioner was erroneously mentioned in cause title of the said order, review petition (Revp No.17/2025) has been filed by the petitioner/wife, 2 which was allowed on 07.04.2025 and order dated 03.09.2024 has been recalled and writ petition is restored and, thereafter, listed today for hearing. 2. Brief facts of this case is that petitioner/wife has moved representation before respondent No.4 seeking compensation on account of death of her husband late Mahettar Lal Yadav, vide representations dated 01.05.2016 and 24.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not considered the claim of the petitioner nor have passed any order in this regard and, therefore, direction be issued to respondent No.4 to take decision on the claim of the petitioner at the earliest. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner on merits, however, he submits that the representations which is stated to be submitted before the authorities is not bearing the receipt seal and, therefore, it cannot be said that the representations has been submitted by the petitioner before the competent authority. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submit afresh representation before respondents No.3 & 4 and they be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously within the specified time. 6. I have heard counsel for respective parties and perused the documents annexed with the record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the 3 submissions made by counsel of respective parties, pleadings made in the writ petition of seeking compensation on account of death of the near relative (i.e. husband) of the petitioner due to electrocution, without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondents Nos.3 & 4 and in turn, respondents No.3 & 4 shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of ‘03 months’ from the date of receipt of such representation. It is ordered accordingly. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-