Dismissed

Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2022WRIC/28825/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that depositing a compounding fee under Section 135 does not erase civil liability for unauthorized electricity use under Section 126. It dismissed the writ regarding the recovery order and directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 127 within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within three weeks.

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28825 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Lakhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Sunil Kumar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Sri Vikas Rastogi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶6

The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the recovery order dated 25.6.2022 whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit the assessed amount for unauthorized use of electricity as indicated in the notice, the subject matter of challenge herein.

¶7

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.2955 of 2019, criminal proceedings initiated by the department was challenged, wherein direction was issued to the authority to decide the application for compounding fee and no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till the fresh decision is taken pursuant to the charge sheet.

¶8

The contention is that no accounting has been done after the order passed by this Court and hence, the petitioner herein filed Contempt Application. The order of the Contempt Court in Contempt Application(Civil) No. 199 of 2020 dated 6.5.2022 has been placed before us to submit that the question of compounding has to be decided in terms of the direction of this Court.

¶9

It is argued that the demand raised in the notice dated 25.6.2022 after deposit of the compounding fee, is illegal.

¶10

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we may note that it is a matter of theft of electricity and the proceeding under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been initiated against the petitioner. The compounding fee deposited by the petitioner is only for condoning the criminal offence, for which the petitioner had been made liable under the Act, in Case Crime No. 234 of 2017(State of U.P. vs. Lakhan Singh) under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 pursuant to the charge sheet dated 13.1.2017. In any case, civil liability for payment of

¶11

unauthorized use of the electricity is not condoned with the deposit of the compounding fee. The assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorized use of electricity, cannot be quashed on the above plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

As regards, the assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, nothing has been stated in the writ petition about notice, service of the provisional assessment and final assessment orders passed by the competent authority. As the writ petition is completely silent, we cannot enter into the factual dispute raised by the petitioner herein.

¶13

However, the remedy before the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. We therefore, relegate the petitioner to file appeal raising all his grievances. In case, such an appeal is filed within three weeks alongwith the certified copy of this order, the competent Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits without raising any objection as to the limitation. However, any other condition to maintain the appeal has not been dispensed with.

¶14

With above observation, the writ petition is disposed of , accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.10.2022 P.P.

¶16

Digitally signed by POONAM PATEL Date: 2022.10.22 16:16:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Singh 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

Bijendra Singh Vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Yaqub Ali Vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and 5 Others

Smt. Saroj Rani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Narayan Singh and Another Vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Shuieb Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others