Disposed

Manish Rungta v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2018WRIC/36160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order assessing electricity theft. The court directed the petitioner that under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, security other than cash deposit can be submitted for the purpose of filing an appeal against the assessment amount.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply to appellate authority for accepting security other than cash deposit for filing appeal under Section 127.

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

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36160 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Manish Rungta Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate),Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapil Dev Singh Rathore

¶4

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kapil Dev Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the electricity department.

¶6

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.9.2018 which is an order passed pursuant to direction of this court passed in Writ Petition No.26979 of 2018 judgement dated 21.8.2018. The aforesaid writ petition was filed against the order of assessment dated 12.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,20,02,967/assessed towards electricity theft. The petitioner is a commercial unit and is running a factory which is engaged in manufacturing of plastic buckets and briefcases at Industrial Estate Area, Deoria. An inspection was made on 29.5.2018 at 2.15 P.M. and certain discrepancies were found and thereafter according to the procedure prescribed an assessment was made. This order was challenged in the aforesaid writ petition and the writ court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer was directed to pass a fresh order. Now the order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner holding that petitioner is guilty of electricity theft.

¶7

It is to be noted that under Section 127 of the Electricity Act petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal. Without going into the merits of the contention of the parties, in case the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks the same shall be considered and decided within a period of two months thereafter.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for filing the appeal 50% of the assessed amount has to be statutorily deposited for the appeal to be heard as provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. The petitioner is not able to meet the liability.

¶9

Considering this aspect of the matter the petitioner can make an application before the appellate authority for accepting the 50% of the amount by presenting security other than cash and bank guarantee. In case such application is moved the same shall also be considered.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.11.2018 Pramod

¶12

(Ajay Bhanot, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)

Manish Rungta v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Rungta 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandit Auto Go Gas Thru Its Partner Nitin Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Eram Scientific Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Munna and Sons Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Parvez Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Sadhna Maurya Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Jagdish Prasad Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another