Disposed

Atul Saxena v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2020WRIC/43005/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an alternative statutory remedy exists under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code. It refused to quash the recovery order, directed temporary abeyance for six weeks while the petitioner approaches the authority, and disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; no change in recovery order status pending approach to authority within two weeks; abeyance of recovery notice for six weeks.

Atul Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43005 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Atul Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Mangal Pandey 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

"(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery order dated 02.08.2019 passed by respondent no. 2 contained as (Annexure No. 5) to this writ petition.

¶7

(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 not to recover the alleged amount except in accordance with electricity rules."

¶8

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

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Department has stated that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply code, 2005 to ventilate his grievance.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the contention made by the learned counsel for the Electricity Department.

¶11

We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition

¶12

for reasons that there is availability of statutory remedy.

¶13

In case, the petitioner approaches the concerned 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 a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶14

For a period of 6 weeks, the impugned recovery notice/citation dated 02.08.2019 issued by the respondent no. 2 shall remain in abeyance.

¶15

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case. The authority concerned shall consider the matter on its own merits.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Arun

Atul Saxena v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Saxena 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

Vinay Shankar Rai and Another Vs Bank of Baroda and 2 Others

Mohd. Amjad Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Raj Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Adwatiya Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Azra Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Smt. Shanti Devi Vs Regional Manager Indian Over Sease Bank 10 Ashok Marg and Another