SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPPIL No. 50 of 2022 Hon’ble G. Narendar, C.J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Abhishek Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 4. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i.) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that the entire FDR amount withdrawn by the Respondents should be deposited again and the losses caused by it should be compensated along with the interest to the consumers and the state. (ii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2, 3 4 and 5 to set up an inquiry committee and punish the guilty officials involved (iii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to deliver the electricity bills on monthly basis to every consumer. (iv.) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restructure the policies and inspite of taking fixed charge on consumption basis, put bills on the basis of load of the consumers as per the scheduled law. (v.) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that all the losses and troubles faced by the consumers should also be compensated by the Respondents. (vi.) Issue a writ, order or direction that the proposal sent by the UPCL to raise the tariffs this year is liable to be stayed for conduct a deep inquiry and serious action should be taken against the mismanagement and corrupt practices adopted by the Respondents departments, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 7. We have pointedly queried the counsel as to which is the legal provision that stands breached on account of encashment of fixed deposits in the names of the respondents/board. 8. Learned counsel, after much dithering, would take the Court to the meeting of the Board. Board meeting only reflects policy and administrative decisions and does not reflect even presence of rule which prohibits the encashment of fixed deposits. 9. The other prayers, having been answered, by way of filling in monthly cycles, the writ petition, in our considered opinion, is rendered redundant. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands rejected. (Alok Mahra, J.) (G. Narendar, C.J.) 05.05.2025 05.05.2025 Ujjwal