Remanded

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secry. Energy and Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2019WRIC/2918/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Justice's Court directed the Executive Engineer to reconsider a recovery certificate of Rs. 87,089/- issued for electricity theft. The court ordered a fresh hearing for the petitioner and stayed recovery pending reconsideration, citing a negative final report and an inquiry concluding the petitioner was not involved.

What did the court decide?

Recovery from petitioner stayed; directed Executive Engineer to reconsider issue afresh considering negative report and inquiry findings, and provide opportunity of personal hearing.

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2918 of 2011

¶3

Petitioner :- Satish Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secry. Energy And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anubhav Shukla,Maboob Ahmad,Rakesh Prasad

¶6

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶7

This petition for writ is preferred to have an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the recovery certificate dated 12.08.2010 issued by Executive Engineer (Prescribed Authority), Electricity Distributions Division 1st, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Allahabad.

¶8

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner at the first instance was subjected to proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein the Investigating Agency after making necessary investigation submitted a final report before the Court. It is also brought to our notice that on an application submitted by the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer-III, Allahabad made an inquiry and arrived at the conclusion that the shop where theft of electricity was noticed is nothing to do with the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner was just sitting at the shop, against that, proceedings were to be initiated. In spite of the report aforesaid, the respondent - Prescribed Authority issued an order of recovery for an amount of Rs. 87,089/-.

¶9

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent - Electricity Company and its Officers.

¶10

Having considered all facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by directing the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distributions Division 1st, Uttar Pradesh

¶11

Power Corporation Limited to reconsider the entire issue afresh by considering the fact relating to submission of negative final report by the Investigating Agency and also the note made by the Sub Divisional Officer after making necessary inquiry. The Executive Engineer, while reconsidering the matter, shall also provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, if demanded.

¶12

Till reconsideration of the matter, no recovery shall be made by the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned recovery certificate. With the observation above, this petition for writ stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.3.2019 Shubham

¶14

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secry. Energy and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secry. Energy and 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

Praveen Sharma Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Kumari Nootan Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Garg Vs the Meerut Devep. Authority and Another

Ibarak Hussain @ Ibarat Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S Netplast Private Limited and 21 Others Vs Union of India and Another

Santosh Sahai Vs Allahabad University Allhabad and 2 Others