Dismissed

Gayatri Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018WRIC/41608/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition for quashing an electricity bill, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply code, 2005 through the appropriate authority within the specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the appropriate authority under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply code, 2005 within 10 days.

Gayatri Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41608 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Gayatri Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following reliefs:

¶6

"A. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the impugned electricity bill dated 9.10.2018 of Rs. 40,407/- (Forty thousand four hundred seven) (Annexure No. 10 to this writ petition).

¶7

B. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no. 3 to correct the electricity bill of the petitioner according to law and also given permission to deposit the bill of the petitioner (after correction to bill) in part payment.

¶8

C. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no. 3 to correct the electricity bill of the petitioner according to law."

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Electricity Department and perused the record.

¶10

The petitioner is raising dispute with regard to the correctness of the bill raised against him.

¶11

It is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy provided to him under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply code, 2005.

¶12

We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition for reasons that there is availability of statutory remedy.

¶13

In case, the petitioner approaches the Respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer/appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance within 10 days from today, his application may be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy

¶14

of this order by a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 17.12.2018

¶17

vinay

Gayatri Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayatri Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Heera Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohammad Sabir and 5 Others Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Pankaj Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vikash Balimiki Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Najnin Bano Vs State of U P and 4 Others