G. RAMA RAO v. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,
REVP/43/2025 · 2025-03-06
Shri Sanjay K Agrawal
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7979 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7979 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
(Rev.Pet.No.43/2025)
2025:CGHC:11324
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 43 of 2025 G. Rama Rao, S/o Late Shri G. Appanna, Aged about 38 years (Presently), Care of Shri V.V.R. Murty, R/o Qrt. O. 3 D, Street 46, Sector 6, Near M.G.M. School, Bhilai Nagar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner versus
1. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Deputy Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, 2nd Floor, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4. Executive Engineer, Store, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Bhilai 3, District Durg (C.G.)
5. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
... Respondents Single Bench: - Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order (In Chamber) 06/03/2025
1. The above-stated review petition is taken-up for consideration in Chamber in view of Rule 90(2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2007’). SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.03.07 15:20:56 +0530
(Rev.Pet.No.43/2025)
2. I have gone through the review petition and the annexed documents.
3. After going through the record of the review petition and the documents annexed therewith and also the order under review, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order dated 28-11-2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(S)No.6191/2016. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed in limine in terms of Rule 90(2) of the Rules of 2007 finding no sufficient cause for review of the order under review. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma