Disposed

Pancham Singh v. Chairman U.P. Power Corporation Limited Shakti Bhawan and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2018WRIC/33405/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a recovery notice for electricity theft. Court observed representation remedy should be exhausted first under U.P. Electricity Supply Code. Petition disposed conditionally pending response within one month. Coercive action stayed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to represent petitioner's grievances within 15 days; respondent to consider within one month; coercive action stayed pending decision.

Pancham Singh Vs Chairman U.P. Power… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33405 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Pancham Singh

¶4

Respondent :- Chairman U.P. Power Corporation Limited Shakti Bhawan And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh,Sudeep Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Narendra Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sudeep Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhinav Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned standing counsel for respondent No.3.

¶7

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the impugned recovery notice dated 09.08.2018 whereby a notice of demand of Rs.44,398/- has been issued against him.

¶8

The facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a residential plot in the name of his wife and for the purposes of construction, a submersible pump was installed. On 19.02.2015, a raid was conducted by the Vigilance Team and the petitioner was caught stealing electricity from the pole and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed against him, which according to him he has paid. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the Electricity Department for meter connection, which was granted on 24.02.2015 and the meter was installed on 02.03.2015. Thereafter, the notice of demand has been issued against him. The contention of the petitioner is that the property has been purchased in the name of his wife and, therefore, the notice of demand cannot be issued against him.

¶9

In our opinion, the petitioner should represent under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 before the respondent No.2- Purvanchal Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited through Executive Engineer, Fathan, District Mirzapur and vent his grievances there.

¶10

We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to represent before the respondent No.2. If such a representation is made by him within 15 days from today, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of one month thereafter. Till such decision is taken by the respondent No.2, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in respect of the impugned recovery notice dated 09.08.2018.

¶11

Order Date :- 3.10.2018 NLY

Pancham Singh v. Chairman U.P. Power Corporation Limited Shakti Bhawan and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pancham Singh v. Chairman U.P. Power Corporation Limited Shakti Bhawan 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

Praveen Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs Bank of Baroda and 2 Others

Sangeeta Chaddha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Cma Cgm Logistics Park(Dadri) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U P and Another

M/S Shailendra Trader Vs State of U P and Another