Disposed

Rajeev Dube v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2021WRIC/21385/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand notice. It directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, mandating a reasoned decision within four weeks with a hearing. Coercive measures were stayed for six weeks or until the representation's disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent to decide fresh representation by reasoned order within four weeks with hearing; stay of coercive measures for six weeks.

Rajeev Dube Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21385 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajeev Dube Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar,Anand Swaroop Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mukesh Kumar

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel representing the State.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed with the following relief:

¶7

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned demand notice dated 25.9.2020 issued by respondent No. 2.

¶8

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the case of the petitioner finally and till then the respondents concerned may be restrained, not to recover/realize any of the amount in pursuance of the impugned demand notice dated 25.9.2020 based on provisional assessment order dated 17.7.2020."

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that demand notice has been issued against the petitioner without deciding the objection of the petitioner, which was already received in the office of Executive Engineer as is evident from the letter dated 18.8.2020 of respondent No. 2 and hence without considering the objection of the petitioner, he cannot be compelled to deposit the amount as mentioned in the demand notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have not proceeded in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act and Clause 8 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Power Corporation has not been able to demonstrate that demand notice has been issued by the authority concerned after considering the representation of the petitioner.

¶11

In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ

¶12

petition with the directions to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today, which shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order by respondent No. 2 strictly in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶13

For a period of six weeks or till the disposal of representation by respondent No. 2, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Ishrat

Rajeev Dube v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Dube v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Imamuddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raisa Begum Vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 2 Others

Vikram Singh Bhadauriya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gyanendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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