Dismissed

Yashpal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2019WRIC/6985/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition despite the petitioner's conviction for theft of electrical energy and disputed outstanding dues. The court held the petitioner was bound to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy under the Electricity Supply Code before approaching this writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

What the court decided

AI extract

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6985 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Yashpal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar Saxena

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

From the record it is evident that petitioner was indulged in theft of electrical energy and also convicted and sentenced vide order dated 23.5.2016 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No. 5, Saharanpur. It is also evident that the petitioner has electrical connection being connection no. D.B.6-0708-080566 which is of commercial with 5 K.W. contracted load and on page 33 of paper book is a copy of bill which shows that there are outstanding amount of Rs. 5,84,221.00/-, last date of payment which was 20th March, 2017.

¶7

Executive Engineer's letter dated 19.11.2018 has said that amount has increased to Rs. 8,16,938/-. Executive Engineer has also required petitioner to show any documents or receipt if any payment is made, but no such document has been placed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of raising his grievance in respect of electricity dues before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under para 7.10(i) of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') read with U.P.E.R.C. (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Ombudsman) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as

¶9

'Regulations, 2003') and thereafter, remedy is provided before Ombudsman under para 7.10 (iv) of the Code read with Regulations, 2003. He also could not substantiate any argument so as not to relegate the petitioner to avail aforesaid alternative remedy.

¶10

In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.3.2019 Manoj

Yashpal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Yashpal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jinendra Pratap Singh and Another Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another

Ankit Kumar Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Dheeraj Mishra Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Suresh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Ayan Chiling Plants Vs State of U P and Another

Sunita Chaudhary Vs State of U P and Another