Dismissed

Vipin Dangi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2021WRIC/21723/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a recovery citation and restrain coercive action. The Court held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the U.P. Electricity Act and did not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under Section 127 of the U.P. Electricity Act, 2003.

Vipin Dangi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21723 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Vipin Dangi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Irfan Ahmad Malik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar

¶4

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

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 01.09.2020 issued by respondent no. 4 (which is contained at Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to take any coercive action against the petitioner with regard to the amount as given in the impugned recovery citation during the pendency of the present writ petition.

¶9

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, in favour of the petitioners, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice or else the petitioners shall suffer irreparably.

¶10

(iv) Award the cost of petition to the petitioners."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery proceeding is liable to be quashed, which has been initiated in an arbitrary and illegal manner without considering the representation of the petitioner.

¶12

Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submits that an inspection was made on 13.11.2019 at the premises of the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner was using electricity through an illegal mode and hence the first information report was lodged against him under Section 135 of the U.P. Electricity Act on 17.11.2019. Thereafter a provisional assessment dated 10.12.2019 was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to give reply within 15 days and hence the

¶13

same was treated as final assessment, which was served upon the petitioner through registered post and thereafter the impugned recovery proceeding has been initiated against him, which suffers from no illegality.

¶14

It is further contended that the representation has been moved by the petitioner at the belated stage on 15.9.2020 wherein it has wrongly been stated that no notice was served in respect of the provisional assessment. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 further contends that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to prefer an appeal against the final assessment order under Section 127 of the U.P. Electricity Act, 2003.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.1.2021 Shahnawaz

Vipin Dangi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Dangi 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

Nitin Upadhyay and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Musfiq Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arti Singh Assistant Probation Officer Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Kamla Stone Works Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 5 Others