The High Court declined to proceed with a writ petition challenging a demand notice for electricity dues because the respondent authority had withdrawn the recovery proceedings, thereby extinguishing the cause of action.
No order passed; case disposed of on cause of action extinction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2877 of 2023
Petitioner :- Amar Nath Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Shri Birendra Prasad Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri N.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam.
The present writ petition has been preferred questioning the validity of impugned demand notice no.510 dated 29.01.2022 issued by Executive Engineer, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Prayagraj-respondent no.3 amounting to Rs.2,18,213/-.
The matter was taken up on 24.01.2023. On the said date, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has asked learned counsel for the respondent to seek instructions in the matter and the recovery in pursuance of the impugned demand notice was stayed.
Today when the matter is taken up, Shri N.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam has placed the instruction/letter 30.01.2023 sent by Executive Engineer- respondent no.3, whereby, he has written a letter to the Additional District Officer (F/R), Kaushambi indicating therein that the proceeding qua to the demand notice no.6495 dated 25.08.2022 is already withdrawn. The said instruction is taken on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the Authority has already withdrawn the recovery proceeding, we are not at all inclined to proceed further in the matter, as the cause of action does not survive. Suffice to indicate that the Authority would be at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law as per the procedure contemplates under Clause 6.8 and 8.1 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of .
Order Date :- 13.2.2023 A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be proceeded with when the recovery proceeding has been withdrawn by the authority.
Whether the cause of action survives after the withdrawal of the demand notice proceeding.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Amar Nath Yadav
State Of U.P.
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
