Dismissed

Ramesh Chandra v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2018WRIC/23885/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed a writ petition filed against an electricity final assessment order. The petitioner argued lack of hearing. The Court held the petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Commission.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Ramesh Chandra Vs Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23885 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra

¶4

Respondent :- Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Udit Chandra,Subodh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Kapil Dev Singh Rathore

¶6

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

¶7

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief;

¶8

(i) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned final assessment order dated 28.5.2018 passed by respondent No. 4 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition).

¶9

(ii) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned final assessment order dated 28.05.2018 passed by respondent No. 4 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) as illegal, arbitrary and void.

¶10

(iii) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to recalculate the time period from the last meter reading slip dated 01.11.2017.

¶11

(iv) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the entire proceedings as time barred.

¶12

(v) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner.

¶13

(vi) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs. 5.00 Lacs per month as compensation till the electricity connection is restored or till the decision of this writ petition whichever is later for illegally harassing the petitioner and to further impose heavy cost upon the respondents which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Department raised a preliminary objection and stated

¶16

that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy. He further submitted that the final assessment order has already been passed in the present matter and the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to file an appeal under Section 127 of The Electricity Act, 2003 before the Commission.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the Electricity Department, however, he prayed that during the pendency of the appeal his electricity connection may be restored.

¶18

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, as such, there is violation of natural justice.

¶19

It is suffice to say that in case if the petitioner is so advised, he may file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and may take all legal pleas as available to him under law before the appellate authority. It is further provided that if an appeal is filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the appellate authority, the same shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a month from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order enclosing therewith a copy of the writ petition and its entire annexures. It is provided that in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of 15 days from today, his appeal shall not be dismissed merely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal.

¶20

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.7.2018 vinay

Ramesh Chandra v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and 3 Others

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

Hari Nath Vs State of U P and 8 Others

Idreesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Maheshwari Bulk Carrir through Its Partner Rajesh Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

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