Disposed

Kamaluddin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2019WRIC/2903/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for a provisional assessment demand without considering his objections. The High Court directed the department to consider the objection, grant a personal hearing, fix a timeline, and stay coercive action for one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider objection, fix date for personal hearing within one month, and stay coercive action for one month.

Kamaluddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2903 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Kamaluddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Singh,Jitendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapil Dev Singh Rathore

¶4

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kapil Dev Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Power Corporation and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondent no.1.

¶6

By the order of this Court dated 8.2.2018 passed in Writ C No.4897 of 2018, provisional assessment order was quashed and a direction was issued upon the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Department that a fresh provisional assessment order will be passed and the objections will be invited and thereafter final assessment will be made.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although a fresh provisional assessment order has been passed and the petitioner has also filed his representation/objection but without considering his objection a demand has been raised for a sum of Rs. 33,98,943/- . It is further submitted that no final assessment has been made, yet the department is pressing for the recovery of the said amount.

¶8

In our view, it would be appropriate to direct the Executive Engineer to consider the objection of the petitioner and then proceed further in the matter.

¶9

The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that against the provisional assessment dated 16.4.2018 the objection filed by the petitioner as contemplated under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act on 1.5.2018 be considered and decided after giving opportunity to the petitioner and will also fix a date for personal hearing as provided under Clause 8.2 of the

¶10

U.P.Supply Code.The said order shall be passed within a period of one month from today.

¶11

For a period of one month, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice dated 7.1.2019.

¶12

Order Date :- 29.1.2019 SKM

¶13

(Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)

Kamaluddin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaluddin v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Mohd Saleem Vs the Sole Arbitrator and 2 Others

Amrawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Samar Jahan Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sudhir Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Virendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Azeem Vs State of U P and 2 Others