Dismissed

Amir Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2023WRIC/23894/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a trustee disputing an electricity bill. The court held that an efficacious alternative remedy existed under the Electricity Supply Code 2005 and disposed of the matter, directing the petitioner to approach the second respondent via application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply to the second respondent within two weeks for redressal within six weeks.

Amir Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191631-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23894 of 2023 Petitioner :- Amir Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent no. 1 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri N.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶6

The petitioner being Trustee/Mutawalli is disputing the electricity bill.

¶7

Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent raised an objection that the matter relates to disputed electricity bill. For redressal of his grievance, the petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy under Clause 6.5 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005 and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy.

¶8

Once an objection is being raised, we have proceeded to examine the record in question and we are of the considered opinion once the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory forum and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case any such application is being preferred by the petitioner within two weeks from today before the second respondent, definitely, the same would be looked into, examined and redressed strictly in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter.

¶10

Order Date :- 5.10.2023 A.K.Srivastava

¶11

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amir Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Khan 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

Vikas Raina Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Dinesh Nigam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dilip Kumar Pandey Vs Union of India and Another

Mohd Shahbaz Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Kewla Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others