Disposed

Kulrakshak Seth and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2019WRIC/33543/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, mainly heard for petitioner no. 1 Kulrakshak Seth, was dismissed. The court directed him to file an objection to the electricity respondent under Clause-6.5 of the U.P. Supply Code, 2005, within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file objection before respondent no. 2 under Clause-6.5 of the U.P. Supply Code, 2005 within four weeks; rest of the petition dismissed.

Kulrakshak Seth and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33543 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Kulrakshak Seth And 26 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Mishra,Santosh Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Tripathi,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶6

In view of the Office report dated 31.10.2019, this petition is entertained only on behalf of petitioner no. 1 Kulrakshak Seth and in respect to the remaining petitioners the petition is dismissed with liberty to file fresh separate writ petitions as the cause of action is separate one relating to separate electricity connection.

¶7

The petitioner is aggrieved against the bill generated by the respondentcorporation in respect to the electricity consumed by the petitioner and submits that corrections are required.

¶8

Counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation submits that the petitioner's application for correction of bill can be consider and disposed of in terms of the provision as contained under Clause-6.5 of the U.P. Supply Code, 2005. He submits that he has no objection in case the direction is issued for disposal of the pending objection of the petitioner, if any.

¶9

In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner shall file fresh objection before respondent no. 2 raising his grievance regarding correction of outstanding bills and the same shall be decided in the light of the provisions contained under Clause-6.5 of the U.P. Supply Code, 2005 expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with the application.

¶10

We further clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the claim of the petitioner and respondents are expected to pass a reasoned and speaking order and dispose of the representation/application of the petitioner within a time bound period as prescribed hereinabove.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 31.10.2019 Shiraz

Kulrakshak Seth and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulrakshak Seth and 26 Others 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

Navin Chand Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thur Secy. Urban Dev. Sec. U.P. Lkw. and Anr.

Smt. Nita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Chandra Bhan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Amar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Saran Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Agya Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others