Disposed

Alluddin v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021WRIC/651/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand notice and recovery certificate without deciding merits. The court directed the respondent authority to dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within four weeks and restrained coercive steps during this period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide representation within four weeks and restrain coercive steps pending decision.

Alluddin Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 651 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Allauddin Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar 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, Sri N. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 and 3.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned demand notice dated 30.07.2018 issued by the respondent no.2 and recovery certificate dated 25.06.2019 to the tune of Rs.2,75,025/- + other expenses issued by respondent no.3 against the petitioner.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 04.11.2020 given by the petitioner.”

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's Rice Mill was closed in 2012, thereafter, electricity was not being used, but inspite of that on 30.07.2018 a demand notice has been issued for payment of amount Rs.2,75,025/- plus other expenses. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not liable to pay the amount after lapse of two years, when the electricity was disconnected, in terms of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'Act, 2003').

¶10

However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Power Corporation submits that inspection was made in the premises of the petition on 09.11.2012 and electricity connection was disconnected but permanent disconnection was

¶11

not done, hence, electricity bills were issued, which is now recoverable to the tune of Rs.2,75,025/-. Further submission is that petitioner cannot get the benefit of Section 56 (2) of the Act, 2003 as the electricity connection was not permanently disconnected and petitioner has moved the representation on 04.11.2020, after recovery citation was issued against him on 25.06.2019.

¶12

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into merits, we dispose of the writ petition direction respondent no.2 to consider the representation dated 04.11.2020 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) moved by the petitioner and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by passing an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall abide by the decision so taken by the respondent no.2 on his representation.

¶13

For a period of four weeks or till final decision on petitioner's representation, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to recovery certificate dated 25.06.2019.

¶14

Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Manish Himwan

Alluddin v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alluddin v. State of U P and 2 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

Suman Vs State of U P and Another

Harindra Khari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shakeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashish Kumar Pradhan Vs Managing Director Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam and 3 Others

Shamshad Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hote Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others