Disposed

Shashikant Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2021WRIC/3407/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking quashing of a recovery citation. It directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Electricity Corporation within two weeks for a reasoned decision within four weeks. Coercive measures are stayed for six weeks or until the representation is decided.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a representation before Respondent No. 2 within two weeks. Coercive measures stayed for six weeks or until representation disposed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3407 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Shashikant Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Niladra Shekhar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel representing the State.

¶6

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

¶7

"1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery citation dated 25.9.2020 issued by the Tehsildar, Mau.

¶8

To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the recovery citation dated 25.9.2020 issued by the Tehsildar, Mau, respondent No. 4.

¶9

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondentPower Corporation submits that an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 09.12.2019 with respect to theft of electricity, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner intends to get the amount compounded under Section 152 of the Electricity Act. thereafter the petitioner never approached the respondentCorporation. Prior to filing of the writ petition, final assessment has also been made and pursuant thereto, the recovery citation has been issued against the petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation further submits that since the petitioner is disputing the accuracy of bill, he has an alternative remedy to approach respondent

¶11

No. 2 under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has provided the required document to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with the directions to the petitioner to move a 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.2.2021 Ishrat

Shashikant Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Brij Raj Medical Store Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nabban Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Netaji Oil Depot Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ordance Clothing Factory Vs Union of India and 4 Others

M/S Siya Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others