Shiv Dhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 29

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36089 of 2019

Petitioner :- Shiv Dhakar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shanker Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri Prem Shankar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5.

The petitioner alleges that he is working as 'Ansh Kalik Pravkta' (Biology) in Obra Inter College, UP State Electricity Production Nigam Ltd and in connection with his aforesaid job, he has been allotted a rented house in the colony on 19.8.2011 in respect whereof he is paying Rs. 390/- per month which includes electricity charges.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that despite the above, the petitioner has been served with the notice of demand dated 7.8.2019 demanding Rs. 1,91,067/- as electricity charges in lump sum from the year 2011 though petitioner was never issued any bill on monthly basis. Counsel for the petitioner accepts that the petitioner is living in the house allotted to him and is using electricity since 2011. He is not paying any electricity charges separately. He is paying Rs. 390/ per month for the house allotted to him which includes the electricity charges. Office order dated 17.8.2011 issued by the the Executive Engineer / Secretary, Awas Awantan Samiti reveals that the petitioner has been allotted the aforesaid house on rent of Rs. 360 plus Rs. 30/- towards water charges totaling to Rs. 390/- per month. The said letter in its note clearly mentions that the petitioner is liable for the payment of electricity charges in addition on regular basis to the Executive Engineer. The aforesaid order as such clearly reveals that the petitioner had not paid any electricity charges ever since he had been living in the rented house allotted to him. Since the petitioner has consumed the electricity, he is liable to make its payment. Accordingly, we do not find any justification for interference with the impugned demand in exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.