Back
B.N.MAHAPATRA
Executive Engineer Electrical – Appellant
Versus
Chairperson, Permanent Lok Adalat – Respondent
JUDGMENT
B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the award dated 12.06.2012 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat Mayurbhanj, Baripada in P.L.A. Case No.5 of 2012 under Annexure-3 wherein the application filed by opposite party No.2-Suresh Chandra Acharya has been allowed in part on the ground that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction/authority.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition in a nutshell are that present opp. party no.2 is a consumer of electricity under the petitioner-Company vide Consumer No. BG 2-611C. Opp. Party No.2’s service line was converted to commercial category from domestic since long. His service line was disconnected on 21.2.1997 due to non-payment of arrear dues of Rs.15,533/-. After disconnection of power supply on 21.2.1997, petitioners went on sending electricity bill as a result of which the arrear increased to Rs.1,33,830/-up to November, 2003. Thereafter opp. party no.2 approached the then Bijuli Adalat, which passed an order on 8.1.2004 in B.A. No.57 of 2004 directing S.D.O., Electrical, Betanoti( NESCO) to revise the energy bill deducting the amount claimed
None of the case laws listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The provided excerpt references a decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the context of procedural matters related to Permanent Lok Adalat but does not include any language suggesting negative treatment or invalidation of the case. Therefore, based on the information available, no case law can be categorized as bad law.
[Followed]
None explicitly indicated. The mention of the Orissa High Court decision appears to be a reference rather than a citation of subsequent treatment.
[Distinguished, Criticized, Questioned, Reversed, Overruled, Abrogated]
No such treatment patterns are evident in the provided excerpt. The description simply states that the learned AGA has referred to a decision, which does not imply any judicial treatment pattern.
The case law listed is minimal and lacks detailed context or subsequent judicial references that would clarify its treatment pattern. Without additional information or subsequent case law citations, it is impossible to determine whether the decision has been followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled.
The excerpt provided does not specify any subsequent judicial treatment or commentary, making the treatment status ambiguous.
**Source :** Deputy Commissioner Mysuru District VS Kushal Enterprises Prop K R Chidambara, Mysuru - Karnataka
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
