Partly allowed

Tehsin Fatima v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019WRIC/38954/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that an appeal under Section 127 of The Electricity Act, 2003 was the available alternative remedy and dismissed the writ petition. However, it granted a confined relief allowing the appeal to be filed within two weeks despite limitation, with expedited disposal and a six-week stay on coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Allowed filing of appeal under Section 127 of The Electricity Act, 2003 within two weeks, expedited disposal within four weeks, and stay on coercive action for six weeks.

Tehsin Fatima Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38954 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Tehsin Fatima Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayank Kumar Agrawal

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ajay Singh, Amrendra Nath Singh (Senior Adv.), Mahboob Ahmad

¶5

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:-

¶7

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the checking report dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure No. 5) order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the respondent no. 5 (Annexure No. 6) and the recovery citation dated 13.11.2019 issued by the respondent no. 7 (Annexure No. 7).

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents especially Respondent No. 2 to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 13.11.2019.

¶9

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to adopt any coercive measures against the aforesaid recovery citation."

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the Electricity Department, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶11

At the very outset, learned counsel for the Electricity Department stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of

¶12

alternative remedy. He further submitted that the final assessment order has already been passed in the matter and petitioner has got an alternative remedy to file an appeal under Section 127 of The Electricity Act, 2003.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that even though statutory remedy is available for the petitioner but the Electricity Department can not act in an arbitrary manner.

¶14

Be that as it may, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition for reasons that there is availability of statutory remedy. It is open for the petitioner to take all pleas permissible under law.

¶15

However, it will be open for the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within a period of two weeks from today. In case, any such appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be entertained by the said authority ignoring the provision of law of limitation and the said appeal shall be decided in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order by means of a speaking and reasoned order.

¶16

For a period of six weeks from today or till the matter is decided by the authority concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶17

It is made clear, that in case, the petitioner does not file any such appeal within the aforesaid stipulated period before the concerned Authority, the benefit accrued to the petitioner under this order shall cease to operate automatically.

¶18

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Arun

Tehsin Fatima v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tehsin Fatima v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Mariyam Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S China Town Bakery and Food Products Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Karan Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Bhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others