Allowed

Jubair Ahmad Shekh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2020WRIC/3255/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a non-speaking order of the Electricity Distribution Block rejecting the petitioner's objections to provisional dues, as it was passed without recording reasons. The court directed the authority to decide the matter expeditiously within six weeks in accordance with the law.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 19.12.2019; directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Jubair Ahmad Shekh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3255 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Jubair Ahmad Shekh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Gaurav Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mukesh Kumar Singh

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 4 and Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer :-

¶7

"i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.12.2019 and recovery (annexure no.1) and also call for records and quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Indian Electricity Act 2003."

¶8

The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner previously filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32201 of 2019 (Jubair Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), which was disposed of on 19.10.2019. The order passed by another Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ petition dated 19.10.2019 is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶9

"Heard Sri Garrav Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

¶10

This writ petition is directed against the recovery citation dated 11.9.2019 for a sum of Rs. 10,29,524/as electricity dues.

¶11

The argument of counsel for the petitioner is that after the rovisional assessment dated 25.5.2017, no final order was passed and that without following the procedure prescribed under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act') the impugned recovery citation has been issued.

¶12

Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh was given time as on the last occasion to seek instructions. On the basis of instructions received by him, he submits that the petitioner had not filed any objections against the provisional assessment but at the same time, the procedure prescribed was not followed, as there is no order of any final assessment.

¶13

There is no material which may show that assessment was finalized by means of any order so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal as provided under section 127 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file objections against provisional assessment dated 25.5.2017 within a period of two weeks from today. In the event any objections are filed, the Executive Engineer shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law most expeditiously, if possible, within a period of six weeks and the recovery shall abide by the decision taken by the Executive Engineer.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed off."

¶15

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted objections against the provisional assessment dated 25.5.2017 before the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Block-Ist, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Budaun/respondent no.3, on 26.10.2019 that is within the time prescribed by this Court in its order dated 19.10.2017. The objections filed by the petitioner is appended as annexure 3 to the writ petition.

¶16

After the objections were submitted an order dated 19.12.2019 was passed by the respondent no.3 rejecting the objections submitted by the petitioner, copy of the order dated 19.12.2019 is appended as annexure 1 to the writ petition. Apart from the same a recovery certificate was also issued by the Tehsildar, concerned, against the petitioner on 11.9.2019 for a sum of Rs.10,29,524/-.

¶17

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no procedure whatsoever has been followed by the respondent no.3 before passing the order dated 19.12.2019 and no

¶18

final assessment whatsoever has been done pursuant to the objections submitted by the petitioner on 26.10.2019. It is further argued that specific directions were given to the respondent no.3 by this Court that in the event any objections are filed the Executive Engineer will consider and decide the same in accordance with law but without considering the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the order impugned has been passed. It is further submitted that the recovery certificate issued by the Tehsildar, concerned, is also illegal since the objection submitted by the petitioner was not at all decided by the respondent no.3 in accordance with law.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

¶21

It appears from perusal of the record that earlier a recovery certificate dated 11.9.2019 was issued by the respondent no.3 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.10,29,524/-. The aforesaid recovery citation was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court being Writ C No.32201 of 2019 (supra). The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement and order dated 19.10.2019 directing the petitioner to submit his objection against the provisional assessment within two weeks. The objections were duly submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no.3 on 26.10.2019. The aforesaid objections were rejected by the respondent no.3 vide its order dated 19.12.2019.

¶22

We have perused the order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 19.12.2019, copy of which is appended as annexure 1 to the writ petition. It appears from perusal of the same that no reasons whatsoever has been given by the respondent no.3 while rejecting the

¶23

objections submitted by the petitioner. The order dated 19.12.2019, which is impugned in the present writ petition is absolutely non speaking order and was passed without giving any reasons.

¶24

In the case of Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited vs. Union of India reported in 1976 (2) SCC 981 the Apex Court was dealing with an appeal against the order of the Central Government on a revision application under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The Apex Court has laid down that :

¶25

"It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasijudicial order must be supported by reasons."

¶26

"If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then along administrative authorities and tribunals, exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partera, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law."

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the order dated 19.12.2019 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. The respondent no.3 is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The recovery shall

¶28

be abide by the decision taken by the Executive Engineer. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 25.2.2020 Pramod Tripathi

Jubair Ahmad Shekh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jubair Ahmad Shekh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Dalchand and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar Nath Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S. Rajesh Enterprises Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nekikar Batham Vs Additional Collector (F and R) and 3 Others

Khalak Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others