Disposed

Tulamani Patel v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2020WRIC/386/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a recovery citation notice by filing a writ petition alleging dispute over the bill. The court held the writ petition inabitable due to availability of statutory remedy under the U.P. Electricity Supply code, 2005, and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against petitioner for six weeks if he approaches appropriate authority within two weeks of the order date.

Tulamani Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 386 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Tulamani Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mani Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

"(I) Issue a writ,order or direction in nature of certiorari to call for record of the case and quash the impugned recovery citation notice dated 9.12.2019 issued by respondent no. 2 (Annexure no. 13 to the writ petition) ."

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the Electricity Department and perused the record.

¶8

The petitioner is raising dispute with regard to the correctness of the bill raised against him.

¶9

It is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy provided to him under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply code, 2005.

¶10

We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition for reasons that there is availability of statutory remedy.

¶11

In case, the petitioner approaches the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance within two weeks from today, his application may be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶12

For a period of six weeks or till the matter is decided by the authority concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶13

It is made clear that in case the petitioner does

¶14

not approaches the authority concerned within

¶15

the stipulated period, as indicated herein above,

¶16

the benefit given to the petitioner under this order

¶17

shall cease to operate.

¶18

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.1.2020

¶20

MLK

Tulamani Patel v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulamani Patel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritu Agarwal and Another Vs District Magistrate and 3 Others

Ajay Bir Chandel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maharishi Kashyap Sewa Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Jamshed Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Danish Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rashid Vs State of U P and Another