M/S AADIL POULTRY vs PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED — CWP/14795/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 13-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010799522026

e-Filing Number

08-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/28981/2026

Filing Date

08-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/14795/2026

Registration Date

11-May-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

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226/227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S AADIL POULTRY

    Adv. MOHD JAMEEL

  2. 2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

  2. 2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited

  3. 3.Assistant Executive Engineer

  4. 4.Sub Divisional Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition filed by M/S Aadil Poultry challenging PSPCL's rejection of its load extension application and final assessment orders for unauthorized electricity use. The court found that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies available, including appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and recourse to Redressal Forums and Ombudsman under Section 42(5) of the 2003 Act. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue these alternative remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/14795/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition filed by M/S Aadil Poultry challenging PSPCL's rejection of its load extension application and final assessment orders for unauthorized electricity use. The court found that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies available, including appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and recourse to Redressal Forums and Ombudsman under Section 42(5) of the 2003 Act. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue these alternative remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case