Partly allowed

Shamshad Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2021WRIC/5249/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of a recovery citation under the Electricity Act. It directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within four weeks for a speaking decision after a hearing and stayed coercive measures for two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move fresh representation within four weeks; coercive measures stayed for two months or until disposal.

Shamshad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5249 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Shamshad Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Janam Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.K. Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel representing the State.

¶6

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned recovery citation dated 27.11.2019 issued by respondent No. 4 as well as for a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.11.2019.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing, the impugned recovery citation has been issued against the petitioner.

¶8

Shri N.K. Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation submits that when the house of the petitioner was checked, he was found using electricity by illegal means and hence, FIR was registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act on 02.6.2019 and thereafter provisional assessment was made on 26.6.2019. When no objection was submitted by the petitioner, the same was treated as final assessment pursuant thereto recovery citation has

¶9

been issued. He further submits that the representation so moved by the petitioner was after issuance of recovery citation by the respondent-authority. Hence, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶10

In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with the directions to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before respondent No. 2 within four 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.

¶11

For a period of two months or till the disposal of representation by respondent No. 2, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.2.2021 Ishrat

Shamshad Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshad Ahmad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shyam Manohar Dharmarth Aushdhalaya Trust Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farzana Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Another

The Institute of Management Education and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Jaswant Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Pvt. Limited Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others