Disposed

Cyfuture India Private Ltd. v. State of Up and 5 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024WRIC/19936/2024

Download

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner given liberty to file additional objections; no change in tariff pending decision.

Cyfuture India Private Ltd. vs State of Up… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123797-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19936 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Cyfuture India Private Ltd Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Goyal,Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Abhishek Srivastava,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

The petitioner has assailed a notice dated 31.01.2024 apprising the petitioner of the fact that the metering equipment at its premises was inspected and some difference was found and it was observed that the petitioner was being billed for MF-20 whereas the actual MF found was MF-40 and therefore, an assessment for a sum of Rs. 86,739.76/- has been made. The petitioner has been called upon to submit its explanation within ten days, failing which, the proposed assessment would be finalized.

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that it is an I.T. Unit and as per the policy of the State Government, the I.T. Units were treated to be industrial units and power tariff applicable to industrial units was made applicable to the I.T. Units. The Executive Engineer passed an order on 05.10.2018 by which the petitioner was given benefit of the said policy and the tariff was converted from HV-1 to HV-2 i.e. from commercial to industrial and therefore, the impugned notice is manifestly illegal.

¶8

Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner has already filed objection against the impugned notice. He submits that a detailed objection would be filed by the petitioner and both the objections be directed to be decided.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent-Electricity Department very fairly states that the objections would be decided before taking any final decision in the matter with regard to change of tariff.

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file additional objections within two weeks along with true attested copy of the instant order and respondent no. 5 would decide the same by a speaking order after due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶11

Until the objections are decided, there would be no change in the applicable tariff.

¶12

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Nitika Sri.

¶13

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶14

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

Cyfuture India Private Ltd. v. State of Up and 5 Others

What the court decided

Cyfuture India Private Ltd. v. State of Up and 5 Others

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Committee of Management Inter College Newarhiya, through Its Manager Nagendra Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt Santosh Devi and Another vs State of Up and Another

Jiyaul Haq vs State of Up and 3 Others

State of Up and 2 Others vs Abhishek

Pramod Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Vidhyacharan Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others