Disposed

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021WRIC/3896/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to approach the Power Corporation with a representation within two weeks. The Corporation must decide within one month after a hearing. Coercive action is stayed pending the final decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach respondent with representation within two weeks; no coercive action to be taken pending final decision.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3896 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gauri Shankar Yadav

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Gauri Shankar Yadav representing the respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed seeking following relief:

¶7

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 20.11.2020 amounting Rs.5,89,775/- (Annexure-4 to this writ petition;

¶8

( ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 not to adopt coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of demand notice dated 20.11.2020."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken electric connection on 28.12.2004 for running pumping set. Thereafter due to non-payment of the electric bill, the connection of the petitioner was disconnected by the respondent no.2 on 26.3.2006. Later on the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs.35000/- on 16.4.2008. However, the respondent no.2 has issued a demand notice on 20.11.2020 requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.5,89,775/- within one month. Copy of the same has been appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

¶10

Learned counsel for the Power Corporation contends that on account of default in making payment of the amount in pursuance of the first demand notice, the demand notice dated 20.11.2020 has been issued against the petitioner, even then he has not paid a single penny. Hence the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondent no.2 within two weeks from today by making a representation, which shall be considered and decided by the respondent no.2 in accordance

¶12

with law within a period of one month thereafter after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶13

Till the final decision is taken by the respondent no.2, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶14

In case the petitioner fails to move a representation within stipulated period, the respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.2.2021 M. Tariq

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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 Ragent Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Value Plus Stores Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep Srivastava Vs State of U P and Another

M/S Ganesh Laxmi Rice Mill Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushil Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Shahid Ali and Another Vs Authorized Officer Allahabad Bank and Another