Disposed

Meera Devi and 119 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020WRIC/3251/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court noted an alternative remedy available under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without quashing the demand notice, with liberty to file separate objections.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to file separate objections under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005, pending which no coercive action to be taken.

Meera Devi and 119 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3251 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Meera Devi And 119 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :-

¶7

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned demand notice dated 11.6.2019 issued by the respondent no.3 against the petitioners.

¶8

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concern respondent not to take coercive action against the petitioners till the decision of the petitioners representation pending before the respondent no.3.

¶9

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the respondent no.3 to decided the representation of the petitioners and revise the bill of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶10

iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶11

v) Award the cost."

¶12

When this matter was taken up today, Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, appearing for respondent no.3 informed us that the petitioners have got an alternative remedy of filing objections under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

¶13

The submissions made by Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, appearing for respondent no.3, appears to be correct.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file separate objections under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

¶15

In case any such objections are filed by the petitioners before respondent no.3 alongwith photocopy of this order within a period of three weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by speaking and

¶16

reasoned orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of such objection by the petitioners before him.

¶17

For a period of eight weeks from today or till the petitioners' objections are decided, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned demand notice.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.2.2020 Shalini

Meera Devi and 119 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Devi and 119 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Transport Lucknow and 2 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

M/S Raghubanshi Stone Product Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Deepak Shukla Vs State of U. P. through Its Principal Secretary and 3 Others

Harish Chandra and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others