Disposed

Vinay Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2018WRIC/10374/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued liberty to the petitioner to file a representation regarding cancellation of subsidy on electricity bills, directing the authority to dispose of it within eight weeks and stay the demand of arrears. Supply was continued at the flat rate pending the outcome.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to file representation; demand for arrears stayed; electrical energy supply continued at the previous flat rate pending disposal.

Vinay Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10374 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vinay Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bidhan Chandra Rai,Deepak Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Anshul Singhal holding brief of Shri Chandan Agarwal for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶6

Petitioner, who is engaged in the business power loom, has approached this Court challenging the demand notice dated 15.12.2017 issued by Executive Engineer, respondent no. 3 for recovery of outstanding arrears.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was covered under Rate Schedule LMV-6, which makes a provision for supply of electricity to power looms on flat rate in accordance with the Government Order dated 14.06.2006 and the order passed by U.P. Electricity Regulation Commission dated 11.07.2006.

¶8

All of a sudden, this benefit of subsidy extended to the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that her connection is not for the weaver user, but it is for investors or businessmen. It is undisputed that the petitioner was availing subsidy for almost 2 years and suddenly the impugned demand notice has been issued.

¶9

The issue is one, which requires investigation into the questions of fact and, thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit and interest of justice would stand served, in case, a fact finding authority shall look into the grievance of the petitioner initially.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel fairly states that, in case, the petitioner raises her grievance before appropriate authority by making a representation, the said authority shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously.

¶11

Considering the facts, we dispose of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation raising her grievances annexing therewith all supporting documents as well as a copy of the writ petition and its annexures before

¶12

respondent no. 1, with the further direction to the said authority to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the policy of the State Government expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of making of the representation.

¶13

Till then, the demand of arrears vide bill-cum-notice dated 15.12.2017 shall remain in abeyance. It is further directed that till the disposal of the representation, as directed aforesaid, supply of electrical energy to the petitioner shall be continued, subject to payment of flat rate as was being paid by the petitioner before the issuance of notice impugned in this petition.

¶14

We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the claim being made by the petitioner and the same shall be decided by the authority concerned on its own merits.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.3.2018 OP

Vinay Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prahlad Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mithun Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Aadarsh Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dilshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others