The court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner raised factual disputes regarding electricity dues recoveries. It directed the respondent to reconsider pending representations and directed restoration of a separate connection upon deposit. No adjudication on merits was made.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35870 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mridul Kumar Sonkar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Krishan Mohan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suman Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
The petitioners are husband and wife. Petitioner no. 1 applied for electricity connection, but it was never sanctioned. There is another connection in the name of petitioner's wife. Petitioner no. 1 is facing recovery of dues of Rs. 1,62,608/- whereas there is recovery of Rs. 98,730/- against the wife (petitioner no. 2). On the submission of counsel for the petitioner, we find that the petitioner is raising factual dispute which cannot be gone into by us in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 11.9.2019 on his behalf and on behalf of his wife disputing of the two recoveries.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to respondent no. 5 to consider and decide the aforesaid representation or any fresh representation, if filed, by the petitioner alongwith the copy of this order within a period of two weeks. In case any such representation is filed, respondent no. 5 shall decide the same in accordance with law most expeditiously, if possible, within one month thereafter. In the meantime, respondent no. 4 shall also consider the request of the petitioner for restoration of his electricity connection which is in the name of petitioner no. 2 provided, the petitioners deposit 25% of the amount outstanding against the petitioner.
The writ petition is dispose off.
Order Date :- 7.11.2019 S.K.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can adjudicate factual disputes regarding electricity dues recovery.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of an electricity connection conditional on deposit.
Mridul Kumar Sonkar
another
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Mithal
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
