Partly allowed

Jag Mohan Lal v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2018WRIC/40377/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent authority to process the petitioner's representation and draft within 15 days if a bank draft of Rs. 20,000 is submitted; otherwise, the petition will be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a fresh representation with a draft and a bank draft of Rs. 20,000 to the Executive Engineer within 15 days for consideration.

Jag Mohan Lal Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and 2… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40377 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jag Mohan Lal Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R. P. Singh Parihar,Namita Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava, Mahboob Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs;

¶6

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondents to connect the Electricity Connection of the petitioner and to supply the Electricity and give the account of old bills and further not to realize the amount given before two years ago.

¶7

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 3 to decide and pass order on the representation of the petitioner dated 3.4.2018 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) within stipulated period at an early date as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."

¶8

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner earlier has filed a Writ Petition No. 14397 of 2013 and this Court while dismissing the writ petition has passed the following order;

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned Advocate who appeared for the Power Corporation.

¶10

Petition appears to be misconceived and is totally on superfluous grounds and totally unacceptable facts. Averments made in para 5 of the writ petition makes entire factual scenario to be false.

¶11

Writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner's representation if that is liable to be decided can be decided."

¶12

Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the Electricity Department has submitted that the petitioner instead of depositing the due amount has surreptitiously got a new electric

¶13

connection despite the fact that the electric dues of the old electricity connection was still pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has neither deposited any amount towards the old electricity connection till date nor he has deposited any amount towards the present electricity connection taken in the year 2015, as such, the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that neither any electricity bill was ever generated nor any electricity bill was ever served upon him, as such, he could not deposit any bill amount.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶16

Be that as it may, petitioner is directed to make a fresh comprehensive representation along with a draft of Rs. 20,000/(to be prepared in favour of Respondent No. 3) before the Respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer ventilating his grievances within 15 days from today along with a certified copy of this order enclosing therewith a copy of the writ petition and its Annexures and, if any such representation is made, the said authority shall make all endeavour to consider and decide the same by a speaking order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner expeditiously preferably within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. In case representation along with the Bank draft for Rs. 20,000/- in favour of Respondent No. 3 is not submitted before the Respondent No. 3, this writ petition would stand dismissed and in that event the Respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶17

With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.12.2018 vinay

Jag Mohan Lal v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jag Mohan Lal v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. 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

Mulayam Singh Yadav Vs State of U P through Collector and Another

Narullah Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Tauraiha Enterprises Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Kishori Sharan Rameshwar Dayal and 4 Others Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Ashoka Tent House Thru Prop. Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 3 Others

Anil Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others