Sh. Sada Ram vs The HPSEB Limited and The Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd.

Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—It is urged by Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Learned Counsel for petitioner that the petition is covered by the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 4/2011, titled as Jag Mohan Singh versus The H.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., decided on 13.6.2011. He further states that LPA against the said decision is pending adjudication before the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court. In the alternative, it is urged that this case was also covered by the decision rendered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 titled as Mooj Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and Others. Applicability of the ratio laid down in both the aforesaid cases, is however, seriously disputed by Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel ably assisted by Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Learned Counsel.

From the pleadings which run into three pages (eight paragraphs), it is not discernible as to how petitioner''s case is covered by the decisions rendered in the judgments cited above.

Faced with this situation, it is urged by Mr. Kaundal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner shall make a detailed representation to the respondent(s)-authority clearly bringing out the circumstances, showing the applicability of the ratio of law so laid down in Mooj Raj Upadhyaya (supra) and Jag Mohan Singh (supra) to the facts of the petitioner''s case. As such, as and when, any representation is received by the respondents, the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. The question of applicability of ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions shall be examined by the authorities.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.