Disposed

Subhash Yadav v. State of U P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021WRIC/20828/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, claiming to be a landlord, sought to quash a recovery citation for electricity dues improperly issued in his name. The court disposed of the petition without deciding merits, directing the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks pending hearing, and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide representation within four weeks after hearing; coercive action stayed.

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U P and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20828 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Subhash Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Behari Yadav,Birendra Kumar Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4 and Shri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no. 5.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the R.C. dated 15.09.2020 issued by the Respondent no. 4 for the 304925/illegally issued as electric due in the name of petitioner (Annexure no. 3);

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents not to recovery the amount of the R.C. illegally issued in the name of the petitioner;

¶10

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 23.09.2020 moved by the petitioner till then aforesaid R.C. may be kept under abeyance;

¶11

(iv) ...............,

¶12

(v) ................"

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the landlord of premises which was given on rent to respondent no. 6 who is running a flour mill in the name and style of M/s. Soni Udyog Industries. The respondent no. 5 has issued a recovery citation on 15.09.2020 for electricity dues of Rs.3,04,925/-. On receiving the same, the petitioner has given a representation dated 13.08.2020 dis-owning his liability to pay the dues and the same is pending consideration since then.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Power Corporation submits that some reasonable time may be given to the respondent no. 5 to decide the representation of the petitioner.

¶15

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a

¶16

direction to the respondent no. 5 to decide the representation of the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure-5 to this petition within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶17

In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery citation.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.1.2021 VR/

Subhash Yadav v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Yadav v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kishore Verma Vs District Magistrate and 2 Others

M/S Singh Rice Mills Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Zaheer Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Girandra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Star Loh and Kastha Kala Udyog and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Makhan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others