RATAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi for the respondent. The petitioner applied for a tubewell connection for a five horse power electrically operated motor in the year 2010.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he was never informed about the estimate pertaining to the said connection and he was waiting for a reply from the respondent electricity department.

(3.) Recently, on information received he has come to know that the estimate dated 27.2.2010, copy whereof is Annexure 2 to the writ petition had been prepared and since the petitioner did not comply with the aforesaid invoice and the conditions thereof, the petitioner's application form appears to have been consigned.