USHA DEVI vs DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS — CWP/11173/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 1. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010605762026

e-Filing Number

08-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/21562/2026

Filing Date

09-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11173/2026

Registration Date

09-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Category

63.64 - ELECT. DIS REG THEFT, DEFECTIVE METRE,OVERCHARGING ( 757 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.USHA DEVI

    Adv. Prateek Rathee

  2. 2.DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS

  2. 2.DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS

  3. 3.SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

  4. 4.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (XEN)

  5. 5.RAJENDER SINGH

  6. 6.HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HSIIDC)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petitioner's plea for immediate reinstatement of her electricity meter and restoration of supply, finding that she had already filed a contempt petition and had alternative remedies available through the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The court declined to interfere, directing the petitioner to pursue her legal remedies through appropriate channels. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11173/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petitioner's plea for immediate reinstatement of her electricity meter and restoration of supply, finding that she had already filed a contempt petition and had alternative remedies available through the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The court declined to interfere, directing the petitioner to pursue her legal remedies through appropriate channels. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case