Allowed

Jay Kumar v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018WRIC/34339/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed an assessment order directing a Class-IV employee to deposit electricity dues in full after a Sub Divisional Officer had permitted instalment payments. The Court directed the Executive Engineer to reconsider the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order dated 31.7.2018 quashed. Petitioner directed to consider fresh representation within one month.

Jay Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34339 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Braj Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Braj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for Staterespondent No.1.

¶6

The petitioner in this writ petition, is seeking quashing of the impugned letter/ assessment order dated 31.7.2018, whereby he was called upon to deposit Rs.354443.00 or submit his reply against the same.

¶7

From perusal of the documents available on record, we find that the petitioner was sanctioned 1 K.V. load, which was cancelled by order dated 11.02.2018 on the ground that there was arrears of Rs.328119/- which has not been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner is a Class-IV employee and is working in Nagar Palika Parishad, Tundla, Firozabad.

¶8

The petitioner had moved an application dated 5.3.2018 before the Executive Engineer, respondent No.2 requesting that the department may permit him to clear the bills by accepting Rs.10,000/- per month. On this, an order was also passed by the respondent No.3, through an endorsement on the application permitting the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000/- per month subject to the condition that he would also clear the current bills.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Tundla, Firozabad, dated 5.3.2018 permitting him to clear the entire bill of Rs. Rs.354443/-, the department is not permitting the petitioner to clear the bill. His contention is that against the original dues of Rs. 2,19,000/- he has also deposited Rs. 1,20,000/- before the respondent No.2.

¶10

In our opinion, once the Sub Divisional Officer has permitted the petitioner to clear the electricity dues by depositing Rs.10,000/- per month along with current charges with a direction that his electricity connection should be restored, there does not appear any justification for issuing the letter/ assessment order dated 31.7.2018 directing the petitioner to

¶11

deposit the entire amount within 15 days. We, therefore, setaside the impugned order.

¶12

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed with a direction that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent No.2 within one month from today, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same in the light of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer-II, Tundla, Firozabad, dated 5.3.2018, the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Khand Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limted, Tundla, Firozabad, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and shall also take into consideration the amounts already paid by the petitioner. He shall also consider the question of reconnection of the electricity of the petitioner.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.10.2018 Ak/

Jay Kumar v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Kumar v. State of U P and 3 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

Smt. Shabana Aftab Vs State Bank of India and 4 Others

Dilip Dhameja Vs Bank of Baroda Govind Nagar Kanpur Nagar and Another

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

Pradeep Garg Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dheer Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others