Partly allowed

Promod Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2018WRIC/23641/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of electricity dues recovery notice and stay on disconnecting connection. Court noted final assessment passed; directed filing of appeal under Section 127 U.P. Electricity Act, 2003 with stay on recovery of Rs. 63,215 on deposit of half amount for 40 days.

What did the court decide?

Stay on recovery proceedings for 40 days or until appeal disposal if petitioner files appeal and deposits half of Rs. 63,215.

Promod Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23641 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Promod Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Chandan Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, interalia for the following reliefs:

¶6

(i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the original records of the present case from the respondents.

¶7

(ii) To issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the entire recovery proceeding including the demand/recovery notice dated 14.06.2018 Annexure no. 1 for recovery/realization of Rs.63,215.00 issued under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking, Dues Recovery Act 1958 and the provisional/final assessment dated 17.02.2018 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as has been initiated by the respondents against the petitioner.

¶8

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover/realize any amount of money, in view of the demand/recovery notice dated 14.06.2018 Annexure No. 1 for recovery/realization of Rs.63,215.00 based only on provisional assessment dated 17.02.2018 during the pendency of the present case/proceeding before the Hon'ble Court or up to its final decision.

¶9

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents not to disconnect the electricity connection no. 9196/392762 of the petitioner and not to initiate any coercive measures against the petitioner during the pendency of the proceeding before them.

¶10

Today, a copy of the final assessment dated 26.05.2018 made by the Electricity Department against the petitioner for Rs.63215/- has been placed before this Court by Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for the Electricity Department and has stated that several opportunity was given to

¶11

the petitioner before passing the final assessment order and when he did not avail the opportunity afforded to him, the final assessment was passed by the Electricity Department.

¶12

To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without considering his objection to the provisional assessment order, the final assessment order was passed by the Electricity Department.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for the Electricity Department and perused the record.

¶14

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that final assessment has been made by the respondent no. 2, against which, an appeal lies under Section 127 of U.P. Electricity Act, 2003, which has not yet been filed by the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner may, if so advised, file an appeal under Section 127 of the U.P. Electricity Act before the appropriate authority within ten days from today along with a certified copy of this order and if any such appeal is filed by the petitioner, the concerned authority shall decide the same within one month from the date of filing of the said appeal in accordance with law condoning the delay, if any, in filing the said appeal.

¶16

For a period of 40 days from today or till the disposal of the said appeal, whichever is earlier, recovery proceedings in pursuance of the impugned demand notice dated 14.06.2018 (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) for recovery/realization of an amount of Rs.63,215/-, as mentioned in the impugned demand notice, shall remain stayed provided the petitioner deposits half of the impugned amount along with the memo of appeal.

¶17

The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.7.2018 Arun

Promod Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Promod Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ghanendra Pal @ Dhanendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohan Singh Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Saleem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shambhu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others