Petitioner challenged inflated electricity bills and levy of surcharge. Court disposed petition by directing petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Executive Engineer within Code provisions for bill claim consideration.
Director petitioner to file fresh representation before Executive Engineer; authority to decide within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36448 of 2018
Petitioner :- Deepa Erasmus Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Kumar,Sri Zafar M. Naiyer (Senior Advocate),Tariq Naiyer Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suman Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Zafar Naiyar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel represents the State-respondent.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court raising a grievance that being consumer of electricity a meter was intalled and inflated bills have been given to the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier moved a representation upon which the meter was changed thrice but the bills have not been corrected. The petitioner is ready to pay the bill upon actual consumption, which is not being considered by the authorities concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the bill late payment surcharge has been levied inspite of objections being raised by the petitioner and the said objection remained undecided. He has drawn our attention to Clause 6.7 of the Electricity Supply Code(in short the Code), which mandates that within two months from the date of objection, the licensee, i.e. the Corporation will decide the claim, which has also remained undecided.
Sri S.K.Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation submits that the petitioner has remedy of filing a representation before the Executive Engineer as provided under Clause 6.5 of the Code and if such a a representation is filed, the Executive Engineer will consider the claim of
the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the Executive Engineer as provided under Clause 6.5 of the Code and the Executive Engineer will consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as far as possible, within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the authority concerned. While filing the representation the petitioner may also raise his grievance in that representation with regard to payment of surcharge of late payment of bill.
Order Date :- 14.11.2018 SKM
(Ajay Bhanot,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed adjacently by directing the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer with a fresh representation regarding inflated electricity bills and late payment
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepa Erasmus
State Of U P
Electricity Board
Another Respondent
Abhinava Upadhya
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
