Petitioner faced theft charges via an assessment notice for Rs. 33,509. The court did not adjudicate merits but directed the respondent authority to consider the pending representation within four weeks.
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. - 21888 of 2020 Petitioner :- Hariom Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
Instant writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs :
"i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Assessment Notice/Demand Notice of Rs.33,509/- on 13.2.2020 by the respondent no. 4 and direct the respondents not to recover the amount Rs.33,509/- concerning the Assessment Notice/Demand Notice dated 13.2.2020 issued by the concerning authority till the disposal of this writ petition.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner/applicant and not to use the coercive measure concerning the Assessment Notice/Demand Notice dated 13.2.2020.
iii. ..........."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the provisional assessment notice dated 13.2.2020, the petitioner has filed a representation which is still pending for consideration.
Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Power Corporation submits that it is a case of theft as the petitioner was using the electricity by illegal means. He further submits that after checking the petitioner's premises, the provisional assessment order has been served on the petitioner and against the provisional assessment order, the petitioner has moved a representation which is still pending for consideration, as such, some reasonable time may be allowed to the respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 4 - Executive Engineer/Prescribed Authority, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Khand (Shahri), U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Kasganj to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.2.2020, annexure-3 to the writ petition, and pass appropriate order by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021/nd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted time to file representation against an electricity theft assessment order.
Hariom Verma
State Of U.P.
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Khand (Shahri)
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
