Petitioner challenged an order for electricity dues recovery via writ petition. High Court held that an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the U.P. Electricity Act was available. Petition dismissed.
Petitioner's application for quashing of the recovery order was dismissed.
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. - 22748 of 2020
Petitioner :- Devendra Singh
Respondent :- The Managing Director,Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
A copy of the receipt of the notice has been supplied today in Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner by the learned counsel for the Power Corporation.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1,4 & 5.
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:
" i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.6.2020 (filed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition) passed by the respondent no.2 for recovery of electricity dues for an amount of Rs.244104/-;
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to give effect to the impugned order dated 30.6.2020 (filed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition) passed by the respondent no.2 for recovery of electricity dues for an amount of Rs.244104/-;
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to initiate any recovery measures pursuant to aforesaid impugned order dated 30.6.2020 against the petitioner;
iv Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;
v Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act have been initiated against the petitioner and thereafter without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no.2 has issued a demand notice on 30.6.2020 for the recovery of the due amount. Hence the proceeding pursuant to the impugned notice dated 30.6.2020 issued by the respondent no.2 has been initiated in an illegal and arbitrary manner.
Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 contends that an inspection of the premises of the petitioner was made on 22.2.2020 and found irregularity, as such provisional assessment was made on 18.3.2020. As no reply/objection was filed by the petitioner within stipulated period of 15 days, it was treated as final assessment pursuant to which recovery notice has been issued by the respondent no. 2. The copy of the provisional assessment was communicated to the petitioner through registered post on 18.6.2020. He further contends that as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 127 of the U.P. Electricity Act, 2003, instant petition may not be entertained.
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.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 M. Tariq
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition can be entertained given the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the U.P. Electricity Act, 2003.
Whether the impugned order for recovery of electricity dues should be quashed due to lack of opportunity of hearing.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Devendra Singh
The Managing Director, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
