In a writ petition challenging a recovery notice and electricity bill, the Court held that since an alternative remedy lies under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it refrained from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and disposed of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1931 of 2021
Petitioner :- Gole Singh Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4 and Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
Instant writ petition has been filed with the following relief :
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Recovery Notice dated 18.12.2019 issued by Respondent no. 2.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by directing the Respondents to set aside the heavy amount of electricity bill which has been imposed without any basis.
III. .............
IV. ............"
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court against the recovery citation dated 28.8.2019 by filing Writ - C No. 36087 of 2019. This Court vide order dated 7.11.2019 quashed the recovery citation 28.8.2019 and directed the petitioner to file objection against the provisional assessment. The petitioner, thereafter, moved a representation, which has been considered and decided by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 18.12.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing while deciding the objection of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Power Corporation submits that if the petitioner is still aggrieved with the order of the respondent no. 2, he may approach before the Tribunal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, this Court refrains itself from exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, if advised, may approach the appropriate forum.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.2.2021 nd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised when an alternative remedy exists under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.
Whether to quash the Recovery Notice dated 18.12.2019 issued by the Respondent.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gole Singh
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
