Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2019WRIC/5674/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition and set aside a non-speaking assessment order made without complying with Para 6.8 of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Code-2005, directed re-assessment, and awarded costs of Rs. 5000 against the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 5.12.2018 is set aside. Amending application allowed. Cost of Rs. 5000 awarded to petitioner.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5674 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 2 of 2019.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶7

Amendment application is allowed.

¶8

Let necessary amendment be carried out during the course of day.

¶9

Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Manoj

¶10

Court No. - 34

¶11

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5674 of 2019

¶12

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶13

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶14

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶15

It appears that a checking was made by raid team on 24.6.2018 at petitioner's house. Checking team found theft of electricity at the premises of petitioner for which First Information Report under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2005') was lodged in Police Station, Ganjdudwara, District Kasganj. Besides, respondents also initiated proceedings for assessment under Section 126 of Act, 2003 by Executive Engineer concerned. Against provisional assessment petitioner made representation before Authority concerned but the same has been rejected.

¶16

For provisional assessment, Authority concerned was required to comply with the provisions contained in Para 6.8 of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Code-2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2005") as held by a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Ashok Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. And others, 2008 (6) ADJ 660, which was followed in a number of cases subsequently.

¶17

The impugned order is wholly non speaking and shows that requirements of Para 6.8 of Code, 2005 have not been fulfilled nor Assessing Authority has applied its mind before issuing

¶18

assessment order in question.

¶19

In the result, impugned order dated 5.12.2018 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. Now, Assessing Authority may proceed for assessment in accordance with law in the light of provision contained under Para 6.8 of Supply Code, 2005 and as per law laid down in Ashok Kumar (Supra).

¶20

Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed .

¶21

Since Assessing Authority on account of his illegal action has compelled petitioner to file this litigation, we also award a cost of Rs. 5000/- against the respondent no. 2 which shall be paid to petitioner.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Manoj

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhulika Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Jitendra Kumar Tripathi Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Neelam Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Imrana Vs State of U P and 2 Others

M/S Supertech Limited Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shiv Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others