In this writ petition regarding an illegal electricity theft issue, the High Court declined to quash the recovery citation and directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within three weeks for consideration by the respondent authority.
Petitioner to move a fresh representation within three weeks; no coercive action interim.
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. - 24097 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mohd Yakub Respondent :- The District Magistrate And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendra Nath Singh,Dharmaveer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no. 3.
The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned recovery citation dated 29.06.2020/22.07.2020 issued by the respondent no. 1/District Magistrate, Mau, District-Mau against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.9,94,592/-;
(ii) ........,
(iii) ........"
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned recovery citation issued by respondent no. 1 to the tune of Rs.9,94,592/- is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits he had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 5817 of 2020 challenging the recovery citation dated09.12.2019 issued for Rs.19,19,340/- and this Court by the order dated 18.02.2020 had directed the authority concerned to consider the representation of the petitioner within one month.
The petitioner, in compliance of the aforesaid order, moved an application within a week if the same came to be decided on 28.12.2020, he has no information. Another impugned recovery notice has been issued by the respondent no. 3 for Rs.9,94,592/- vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition, consequently recovery citation dated 22.07.2020 has been issued by the respondent no. 1.
Learned counsel for the Power Corporation refutes the
submissions of the petitioner and contends that the petitioner has approached this Court by concealing material facts. The petitioner was found using electricity by illegal means twice and in respect of which two separate First Information Reports were registered. The first F.I.R. was registered on 22.05.2019 being Case Crime No. 207 of 2019 as the petitioner's premises was inspected and he was found using electricity by illegal means. A provisional assessment certificate was issued for Rs. 19 lakh and odds whereas in the subsequent F.I.R. lodged on 30.09.2019 as Case Crime No. 472 of 2019 under Section 135-B of the Act he was found involved in the commission of electricity theft and on the basis whereof provisional assessment has been determined pursuant thereto recovery citation has been issued, which is under challenged.
However, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 fairly submits that provisional assessment of the aforesaid amount has been done twice and in case the petitioner moves a fresh representation within the stipulated period the same shall be considered by the respondent authority, after taking into account the due amount of electricity bill pursuant to the subsequent F.I.R. lodged against him, as the first representation has already been decided in compliance of the order dated 18.02.2020 on 28.12.2020 and the delay had occured to decide the same on account of pandemic of Covid-19.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, since highly disputed question of facts are involved, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the petitioner to move a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances within three weeks from today along with a copy of this order which shall be considered and decided by respondent no. 3, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery citation dated 29.06.2020/22.07.2020. In case the petitioner fails to move any representation within the stipulated time he shall not be entitled to the benefits of this order.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 VR/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned recovery citation be quashed in the facts of the case?
Mohd Yakub
The District Magistrate
Power Corporation
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
