Order No.    1                                         Date : 24.11.2017.

          Record is put up today in view of application filed by the complainant for passing interim order directing o.ps. not to disconnect his service connection.

          Let this petition be registered as MISC no. 58 of  2017.

          MISC Case is taken up for hearing.

Ld. advocate for the complainant submits interalia that o.p. no. 2, Station Manager, WBSEDCL, is making threat to disconnect his service connection by sending notice directing this complainant to pay electricity charge to the extent of Rs. 34,067/-. Ld. advocate for the complainant further submits that the claim made by the o.p., WBSEDCL, has been challenged in this case. So he prays for passing an interim order directing o.p. nos. 1 & 2 not to disconnect his service connection.

          Heard ld. advocate for the complainant. Perused the material on records. It appears that o.p. nos. 1 & 2 of  this case have made their appearance through their advocate by filing Vakalatnama and 05.12.2017 has been fixed for filing W/V and W/O against the petition dated 10.10.2017 filed by this complainant. It reveals from petition dated 10.10.2017 that this complainant filed petition dated 10.10.2017 with a prayer to pass an interim order directing o.p. not to disconnect the case service connection of the complainant. Copy of this petition was served upon the other side and 05.12.2017 has been fixed for filing written objection against said petition for interim relief. So it appears to us that this complainant filed same and identical application this day and also prays for same relief without serving copy of this petition upon other side, WBSEDCL.

          So we are of the opinion that filing of identical petition for same relief should not be indulged. Moreover, any petition for interim relief should not be heard and disposed of without giving an opportunity of being heard to the other side where other side has made their appearance.

          In view of the circumstances we are of the opinion that if the petition filed by the complainant on 10.10.2017 and prayed for the same relief as prayed in this petition should be heard and this complainant may get same relief in earlier his petition as prayed in this petition.  

          In view of the circumstances we find that the petition filed this day praying for same relief as prayed in petition dated 10.10.2017 should be rejected, to avoid multiplicity of petitions / cases. We do not like to pass any observation about merit of this petition.

          Hence,

                                 O r d e r e d

          That the MISC no. 58 of 2017 be and the same is hereby rejected.

          To 05.12.2017 for filing  W/V and W/O against the petition dated 10.10.2017  for interim relief filed by the complainant.