Partly allowed

Julfkar Alias Jullu v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2018WRIC/33759/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court removed one respondent and allowed the writ petition partly. It quashed a recovery citation issued on a provisional assessment because a final order was mandatory under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. A direction was issued to the electricity department to comply with the Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery citation quashed; direction to pass final assessment order complying with Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Julfkar Alias Jullu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33759 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Julfkar Alias Jullu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Gupta,Ashwani Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar Saxena

¶4

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

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to delete the respndent no.6 from the array of respondents.

¶6

Permission is granted.

¶7

Let the respondent no.6 be deleted from the array of respondents today itself.

¶8

Heard Sri Om Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1, 4 & 5.

¶9

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the demand notice dated 01.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.3,06,528/- which is stated to be based upon provisional assessment.

¶10

The allegation is that during checking by the Electricity Department it was found that the petitioner had connected 3 Core L.T. Cable to the Transformer directly and was using electricity illegally which amounted to theft. An FIR has also been lodged against the petitioner.

¶11

However, enquiring from the counsel for the respondents we were informed by the said counsel on instructions received that the Electricity Department had conducted a spot inspection on 20.01.2018 and thereafter a provisional assessment order was passed on 30.01.2018 and the very next day the demand notice dated 01.02.2018 was issued and a recovery citation has also been issued.

¶12

The petitioner is stated to have filed his objection to the demand notice on 19.02.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

¶13

What we notice is that recovery citation does not bear any date. There is

¶14

also nothing on record to show as to whether any final assessment order was passed by the Department.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents has also not been able to disclose as to whether any final assessment order was issued or not.

¶16

In this view of the matter without passing any final assessment order as required by the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, we set aside the impugned citation filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

¶17

The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶18

A direction is issued to the respondent no.2, Managing Director, Pachimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Meerut to consider the petitioner's objection dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and thereafter proceed to pass the final assessment order strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

It has come to our notice that in a number of cases proceedings are initiated against the electricity consumers simply on the basis of a provisional assessment order without there being any final order of assessment as mandated in sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. This is not permissible.

¶20

We, therefore direct the respondent no.2, Managing Director, Pachimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Meerut to issue directions to all his subordinate officers to take care while passing assessment order and final assessment order and to ensure that the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules are complied with strictly, failing which this Court will be constrained to take action against the individual officers who may also be saddled with heavy personal cost.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.10.2018 N Tiwari

Julfkar Alias Jullu v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Julfkar Alias Jullu v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Vijendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Satish Singh Vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and 2 Others

Bhola Nath Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Satya Automobiles and 2 Others Vs Bank of Baroda Head Office and 2 Others

Gajinder Kaur Upadhyay Vs Chief Manager Ras Mec and Another

Smt. Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Mainpuri and Ors.