Disposed

Smt. Hanifa v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2022WRIC/19085/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged a notice from the Electricity Dept requiring documents to regularize a connection imposed after a private complaint. Though she had submitted documents, no decision was made. The court directed the department to decide within eight weeks after providing notice and opportunity of hearing to opposing parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide within eight weeks ensuring opportunity of hearing to opposing parties; maintenance of status quo provided bills are paid.

Smt. Hanifa Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19085 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Hanifa Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ran Vijay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Narendra Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

The petitioner is aggrieved by a notice dated 30th April, 2022 issued by respondent no.4 requiring the petitioner to submit her documents in relation to premises in which she is having electricity connection. The said information was sought on basis of a complaint made by a private person. The notice further stipulates that in case reply is not submitted within three days, the electricity supply will be discontinued.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already filed a reply and documents in pursuance of the impugned notice. It is submitted that the respondents have not taken any decision in the matter so far.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the electricity supply has not been discontinued so far. He further submitted that a suit for injunction was filed by the petitioner against the landlord in which there is an order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the electricity department submitted that the concerned respondent will take decision in the matter, expeditiously.

¶9

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merit, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the concerned respondent to take decision in the matter in accordance with law, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the instant order, after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other persons who are opposing the grant of electricity connection to the petitioner.

¶10

Till the decision is taken in the matter, the respondents will maintain status quo in regard to the supply of electricity provided the bills are regularly paid.

¶11

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

The petitioner will file copy of the instant order before respondent no.4 within ten days from today failing which the protection granted shall stand vacated automatically.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.7.2022 Rameez

¶14

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by RAMEEZ AHMED Date: 2022.07.14 17:18:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Hanifa v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hanifa 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

Harun Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anant Kumar Agarwal Vs U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and 3 Others

M/S Prem Engineering Vs U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and 3 Others

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajnara Integrity Apartment Owner Association Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Prakashwati Vidya Mandir Junior High School Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others