Disposed

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2023WRIC/1295/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand notice for electricity dues. The Court directed the respondent to decide objections to a prior recovery certificate and the notice within four weeks, with a stay on coercive action pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with stay on coercive action and direction to respondent to decide objections by speaking order within four weeks.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1295 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prakash,Amit Goswami Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Mishra

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶3

The instant petition has been filed challenging the demand notice dated 14.7.2022 issued by Executive Engineer Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (respondent no.2) by which the petitioner has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs.4,16,163/- as electricity dues.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.38118 of 2008 challenging the recovery certificate dated 16.6.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,61,154/- on the ground that although tubewell connection has been sanctioned but the line was not energised. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 31.7.2008 with liberty to the petitioner to make representation within two weeks and a direction to the concerned respondent to decide the same and until decision is taken, the recovery was kept in abeyance. It is pointed out that the petitioner submitted a representation in pursuance of the said order on 4.8.2008 before respondent no.2, but without deciding the same, the impugned demand has been raised.

¶5

Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 states that since the matter relates to the year 2008, therefore, the records are not traceable. He submits that in case any fresh objection is filed by the petitioner, respondent no.2 will decide the same in terms of the previous order of this Court.

¶6

In our opinion, it will serve the ends of justice.

¶7

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall file objection against the previous recovery certificate as well as the impugned demand notice within two weeks from today and in which event, it will be decided by respondent no.2 by means of a speaking order within next four weeks.

¶8

Until the objections are decided and decision is taken, no coercive action shall be taken in pursuance of the impugned demand notice.

¶9

(Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶10

Order Date :- 16.1.2023 SL

¶11

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

M/S Asha Devi Tea Stall and Restaurant and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Anirudh Singh Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Virendra Singh Vs Branch Manager, Canara Bank

Urman Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Jagdamba Annapurna Bhandar through Its Proprietor and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pawan Kumar Tyagi and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others