Dismissed

Khalil Ahmad v. State of U.P. through D.M. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2020WRIC/12669/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-Judge Bench dismissed an application under Article 226 challenging an order directing payment of electricity arrears. The Court held that since a statutory appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was available, the petitioner failed to exhaust remedy and the writ petition was not entertained, though an extension was granted for filing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; however, an appeal filed within three weeks shall be treated as filed within time.

Khalil Ahmad Vs State of U.P. through D.M. and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12669 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Khalil Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through D.M. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:

¶7

i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set-aside the order dated 7.1.2020 passed by the respondent no.3, Executive Engineer, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran, Nigam, Limited, Electric Distribution, Division-I, Mainpuri;

¶8

ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the objection of the petitioner in the light of order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 18.11.2019;

¶9

iii. To issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case to meet the ends of justice;

¶10

iv. To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

¶11

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 7.1.2020 has been passed by respondent No. 3 directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.19867/- by 6.1.2020 towards the arrears of electricity charges. It is further argued that way back on 10.7.2018 the petitioner had received a notice under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act (Provisional Assessment) demanding a sum of Rs.8000/- as compounding fee, Rs.62961/- as assessment charges and Rs.600/- as disconnection fee and further granted 10 ten days time to file reply/objections. The petitioner had filed the objections against the aforesaid notice on 20.7.2018.

¶12

Thereafter, a notice was again sent to the petitioner on 27.9.2018 demanding a sum of Rs.62,986/-.

¶13

Being aggrieved by the notice dated 27.9.2018 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 62,986/-, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ-C No.36146 of 2019, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2019 directing the petitioner to appear before respondent no. 3 along with his objection and adduce evidence, if any, in support of his contention after making a deposit of Rs.20,000/with the electricity department with respect to his dues. It was further directed that the respondent no.3, thereafter, shall pass the final order by a speaking order after considering the objections as well as the contention raised by the petitioner. The said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter approached respondent no.3 along with his objection which has not at all been considered and the order impugned has been passed directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.19867/- as balance amount. It is contended that the said order has been passed in the teeth of the order passed by this Court as no speaking order has been passed considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Hence the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶14

However, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 have refuted the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the order impugned has been passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner who had himself given an undertaking that he will pay the due amount, but has failed to pay the same within the stipulated period. Initially the date was fixed for considering the objection, but the petitioner failed to appear on that date also, which is evident from the order impugned.

¶15

It is further contended that in the said petition, it was observed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court that in case the petitioner is aggrieved with the final order, if any, passed against him, it will be open for the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in accordance with law. Despite the said observation, the petitioner has approached this Court, hence does not deserve any indulgence.

¶16

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that when there is statutory provision provided under the Electricity Act, 2003 to file an

¶17

appeal against the final order under Section 127 the petitioner ought to have exhausted the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶18

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the petitioner files an appeal within three weeks from today along with a copy of this order before the authority concerned, the same shall be treated to be filed within time which shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶19

No order as to cost.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.9.2020 M. Tariq

Khalil Ahmad v. State of U.P. through D.M. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalil Ahmad v. State of U.P. through D.M. and 2 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

Sarwan Kumar Jaiswal Vs Union of India and 2 Others

M/S Ekta Agencies and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramesh Chandra Yadav Vs Union of India and 2 Others