1 2025:CGHC:17916 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5420 of 2022 Dr. Tanuja Birtharey W/o Rahul Birtharey Aged About 47 Years R/o Nijanand Niliayam, M.I.G. - 1 D - 6, Awantika, Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mahannadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Office Of C.E. C.S.P.D.C.L. Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Director C.S.P.D.C.L., Office Of E.D. C.S.P.D.C.L, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Office Of E.E., C.S.P.D.C.L. Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Assistant Engineer Office Of A.E. C.S.P.D.C.L., Pathariya / Sargaon, Mohbhatta,, Pathariya Road, District, Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Birtharey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 21.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Birtharey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.21 18:38:16 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ or writs/orders in the like nature to the respondents including the writ in the nature of mandamus there by commanding the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P/4) in accordance with law and procedure expeditiously and timely. 10.2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner is owner of the land and premises located at Village Nagpura, Up-Tahsil Sargaon, Patwari Circle No. 35, Revenue Circle -Pathariya, Tahsil-Pathariya, Distt. Mungeli (C.G.). She applied for grant of permanent electricity connection on payment of the requisite fee at the agricultural land located at Village Nagpura and submitted the process fee on 29.04.2022 and 27.06.2022. Thereafter the office of the Executive Engineer, C.S.P.D.C.L. Mungeli (C.G.) issued a letter to the Assistant Engineer vide No.998 dated 31.05.2022 for issuance of the work order and the office of the Assistant Engineer had issued an order for the payment of the requisite fee for the grant of permanent electricity connection on 20.06.2022 to the petitioner. 3 4. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the Executive Engineer on 20.07.2022 regarding execution of further proceedings, execution of agreement, noticing herself duly and properly through registered post and supplying requisite essential information(s) under the fundamental right to knowledge and the statutory right to information regarding the grant of permanent electricity connection to her and making suitable arrangements for the street lights for the commuters of the Nagpura Village on 31.05.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the inaction on the part of respondents in not considering the grievance, claim of the petitioner timely and properly and completely, is arbitrary mala-fide and capricious and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India. He fairly submits that some of the relief(s) sought for by the petitioner has already been redressed, however, the relief with regard to the street light is concerned, the same has not been redressed. It has been contended that the petitioner has made representation, but there is a prolonged, unjust, unreasoned and unfair delay in not deciding the representation and also not granting permanent electricity connection. It has been further contended that the complaint of the petitioner was not considered timely and properly in accordance with law, so considerable damage, inconvenience, nuisance as well as risk to life and property worthy of compensation and adoption of adequate measures had occasioned, as the connection granted is temporary and runs from a very far distance and also there is voltage fluctuations. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that they are ready and willing to redress the grievance of the petitioner, however, it will take some time. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 8. Considering the matter in its entirety, the respondents No.2 to 5 are directed to redress the grievance of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. It is made clear that the grievance which has been raised by the petitioner seems to be genuine one and the respondents are under obligation to do the needful in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/-S (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh