Disposed

Vishwanath Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019WRIC/17205/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging electricity recovery proceedings. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a complaint to the Executive Engineer. Recovery proceedings are stayed pending the Engineer's decision after giving an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The recovery proceedings are stayed for a period of six weeks or until the decision of the concerned Executive Engineer, whichever is earlier, conditioned on the submission of a representation by the

Vishwanath Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17205 of 2008 Petitioner :- Vishwanath Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.P. Dube,Rajesh Tripathi

¶3

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Abhas Jaiswal, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for th petitioner, Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶5

The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of recovery initiated by the respondent in respect of the outstanding dues of the electricity consumed by him.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the electricity connection has already stood transferred in favour of the respondent No.5 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be saddled with liability towards recovery.

¶7

In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the matter requires at the first instance examination by the concerned Executive Engineer and for that purpose, we direct the petitioner to make a comprehensive application/ representation narrating his grievance seeking redressal of his grievance also before the Executive Engineer within a period of two weeks from today and in such event if such application/ representation as directed hereinabove is submitted, the same shall be looked into by the concerned Executive Engineer within a period of four weeks after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶8

For a period of six weeks or the decision to be taken by the concerned Executive Engineer as per our directions contained hereinabove, whichever is earlier, the recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned recovery citation dated 29th February, 2008 passed by the Collector, Mathura shall remain stayed and the recovery proceedings shall abide by the ultimate order to be passed by the Executive Engineer.

¶9

Needless to add that any order shall be passed after putting notice to the respondent No.5.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Atmesh

¶12

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

Vishwanath Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Agarwal v. State of U.P. and 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

Rajeshwar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limitedand Another

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Partner Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ncc Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S. Rayban Foods Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others