PANCHANAN KHASKEL PRADIP PAUL vs WBSEDCL AND ORS — WPA/6631/2026

Case under West Bengal Electricity Act ,2003 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 25-Mar-2026

CNR: WBCHCA0130072026

Filing Number

WPA/6610/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

WPA/6631/2026

Registration Date

18-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Connection/Disconnection ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 15-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

West Bengal Electricity Act ,2003 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PANCHANAN KHASKEL PRADIP PAUL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.WBSEDCL AND ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan KapurView PDF

    The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the writ petition (WPA 6631 of 2026) filed by Sri Panchanan Khaskel against WBSEDCL after WBSEDCL paid Rs. 53,329 to the petitioner, which was admitted by both parties. The court found no surviving issue for adjudication and granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit for any other monetary claims, without addressing the validity of the Ombudsman's order dated 1 September 2015. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    New Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan KapurView PDF

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPA/6631/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the writ petition (WPA 6631 of 2026) filed by Sri Panchanan Khaskel against WBSEDCL after WBSEDCL paid Rs. 53,329 to the petitioner, which was admitted by both parties. The court found no surviving issue for adjudication and granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit for any other monetary claims, without addressing the validity of the Ombudsman's order dated 1 September 2015. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case