Disposed

Suresh Chandra v. State of U P and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2020WRIC/243/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner admitted liability but sought payment by instalments and restoration of domestic electricity supply. The court directed the Executive Engineer to consider an instalment application within one month, stayed coercive action for one month, and restored supply upon 50% deposit within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Stay on coercive action for one month to consider instalment application; restore electricity supply if 50% deposit made within two weeks.

Suresh Chandra Vs State of U P and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 243 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar, Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following reliefs:

¶6

"(I) Issue an order, direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned provisional assessment notice dated 10.12.2019 issued by the respondent no. 2 for recovery of Rs. 52187/-.

¶7

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents restore the domestic electricity connection of the petitioner."

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Department and perused the record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner accepts the entire liability and he is ready to pay the entire amount provided some instalments are fixed.

¶10

Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Electricity Department, submits that under Paragraph 6.14 of the Electricity Code, 2005, the Executive Engineer is vested with the powers for

¶11

fixing instalments and therefore, the petitioner may approach the Executive Engineer.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that in case, the petitioner makes an application to the Executive Engineer with regard to payment in instalments as provided under Paragraph 6.14 of the Electricity Code, 2005, the Executive Engineer may consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before it.

¶13

For a period of one month, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶14

It is provided that in case, the petitioner deposits 50% of the impugned amount with the concerned Executive Engineer within a period of two weeks from today, the electricity supply of the petitioner shall be restored forthwith.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.1.2020 Arun

Suresh Chandra v. State of U P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Singh Kardam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Rathore and Others Vs Union of India and Others

State Bank of India Vs Additional Collector and 5 Others

Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Sameer Vs Punjab National Bank and Another