Disposed

Mushahid v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2023WRIC/10743/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an electricity bill immediately but directed the authority to decide pending objections regarding an overlying bill after permanent disconnection. It mandated a decision on the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time, suggesting the petitioner use Rule 6.5 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide representation dated 06.01.2023 within stipulated time; subject open to objection under Rule 6.5.

Mushahid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10743 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Mushahid Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Petitioner is before this Court for a direction to quash the impugned Electricity Bill dated 30.08.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and for a further direction to the Respondent No. 3 to decide the representation dated 06.01.2023 within stipulated time.

¶6

It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner had taken Electricity connection on 04.02.2015 being Connection No. 003010, Meter No. 30027920 to run 'Atta Chakki' in village-Lalloo Nagla, Kothi under the Sub-Division-EDSD-VI, Kothi Khidamdpur under the Electricity Distribution Division-II, Amroha. Due to personal difficulty, petitioner had requested to the official of the concerned Electricity Department for permanent disconnection of the Electricity supply which was permanently disconnected on 05.03.2018 after paying electricity dues of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner came to knowledge that even after completing formalities of permanent disconnection and even after paying the dues, the Electric Bills of Rs. 6,29,783.99/- as arrears was issued by respondent no.3 on 30.08.2022. Aggrieved with the same the petitioner moved a representation dated 06.01.2023 through registered post before Respondent No. 3 requesting him to enquire into the matter and recall/cancel the impugned bill dated 30.08.2022 but till date no action has been taken by Respondent No. 3 on the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2023.

¶7

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting into the merits of the case, we leave it open to the petitioner to move an objection in terms of Rule 6.5 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 before Respondent No. 3. In case such an objection/claim is set-up by the petitioner before Respondent No. 3 under Rule 6.5 of Electricity Supply Code, 2005, we hope and trust that the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law by the Respondent No. 3, Executive

¶8

Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Amroha.

¶9

This order has been passed with the assistance of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the contesting Power Corporation.

¶10

Order Date :- 3.4.2023 A. Mandhani

¶11

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mushahid v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mushahid 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

M/S Mradul Pratap Singh, Govt. Contractor, Vs Union of India and 3 Others

M/S D.M. Construction Vs Union Of India and 3 Others

Mohammad Rafi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kishor Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dharm Veer Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

National Medical Ignou Community College Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others