Disposed

Raju Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021WRIC/995/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition petitioning for quashing of an electricity recovery notice and restoration of connection. The court directed the State Electricity Board to consider the petitioner's grievance with hearing within four weeks and imposed an interim stay on coercive measures, subject to deposit of the first instalment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to move representation within two weeks; Authority to decide in four weeks; interim stay on coercive measures; connection restored on deposit of first instalment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 995 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Raju Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Agarawal

¶4

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

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 3.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed with the following relief;

¶7

" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned recovery notice issued by the respondent 2 and 3 on 28.8.2020 of Rs. 78,068/- + other charges (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to correct the bill of the petitioner and restore the electric connection of the petitioner.

¶9

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶10

(iv) Award the cost of the instant petition of the petitioner."

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has an electric connection and is paying the electric bill continuously but on account of some unavoidable circumstances he defaulted in making the payment on the few dates, thereafter the checking team had inspected the premises of the petitioner and lodged a first information report under Section 138 of the U.P. Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 showing the exorbitant amount of arrears towards the electricity bill.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 submits that in case the petitioner is disputing the amount, he may approach the respondent no. 2 under Clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Code 2005. He has also pointed out that the petitioner has already approached before the Redressal Forum under Clause 7.10 being Case No. 31 of 2020, which is pending for consideration.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the recovery citation has been issued against the petitioner and as such the petitioner has approached before this Court. However, he will withdraw the said complaint and approach the respondent no. 2 under Clause 6.10 of the

¶14

Code.

¶15

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall move a representation within two weeks before the respondent no. 2 who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶16

In the meantime, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery citation. It is further provided that in case the petitioner deposits the first instalment within the stipulated period as may be fixed by the respondent no. 2, the electricity connection may be restored. In case of any default, the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the benefit of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Shahnawaz

Raju Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Pal 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

Sanjay Singh Vs General Manager H.D.B. Financial Service and 2 Others

Rakesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lokesh Mittal Alias Romi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Imran Husain Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and 3 Others

Ram Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others