Allowed

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2023/1909/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed recovery proceedings initiated under the U.P. Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958, noting that final assessment was not passed before recovery. The court directed the company to provide the provisional assessment for objection.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings quashed; Distribution Company directed to furnish provisional assessment order within 10 days for petitioner to reply; final assessment order to be passed only after opportunity o

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1909 of 2023

¶2

Petitioner :- Amit Kumar

¶3

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Jauhari

¶5

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel representing the Vidyut Vitran Khand-II, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., District Amethi.

¶7

Under challenge in this writ petition are the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents-Distribution Company by issuing Demand Notice on 12.01.2023 under Section 3 of U.P. Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 and consequently recovery certificate has also been sent to the Collector.

¶8

On query, it has been admitted by learned counsel representing the Distribution Company that though provisional assessment was made available to the petitioner, however, since the petitioner did not file any objection, the recovery proceedings have been initiated. He, however, could not satisfy the Court that even if no reply/objection to the provisional assessment was made by the petitioner, any final assessment order was passed. Under the Scheme of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Electricity Supply Code, after issuance of provisional assessment objections are invited from the consumer and thereafter final assessment order is passed. However, in this case it is only after provisional assessment that recovery proceedings have been initiated.

¶9

Admittedly, in this case no final assessment order has been passed.

¶10

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed . The recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner are hereby quashed. However, we direct the Distribution Company to furnish the provisional assessment order to the petitioner within 10 days from today and thereafter the petitioner shall furnish her reply to the said provisional assessment within a fortnight. Once the reply/objection to the provisional assessment order is made by the petitioner or if she fails to make reply/objection within the time stipulated herein, the competent authority of the Distribution Company shall pass final assessment order and serve the same on the petitioner and it is only in case of non-payment of amount after service of final assessment order that it will be open to the Distribution Company to take coercive measures under the Act for realization of the amount.

¶11

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 3.3.2023 Pradeep/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 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

Mishri Lal Vs Union of India through Chairman Railway and 2 Ors.

Ram Sanehi Adult and 8 Others Vs Union of India through General Manager N.E.R.and 2 Others

Swaminath Pandey Inre W.P.NO.3006SS2000 Vs Ram Lal and 4 Others

Indrawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Divya Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Additional Chief Secy. (Revenue) Lko. and 2 Others

Moti Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others