Disposed

Arun Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2012CWP/17860/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that while the legitimacy of the demand for additional consumption security was not in question, the lump-sum recovery mode was contentious. Declining to issue a writ under Article 226 due to limited controversy, the court directed the respondents to consider permitting instalment payments over two to four billing cycles.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider feasibility of paying the demanded amount in instalments over 2 to 4 billing cycles due to limited controversy.

Arun Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and… — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.17860 of 2011

¶3

Date of decision : 23.5.2012

¶4

Arun Kumar and others

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The only grievance that has been raised in the writ petition is that the respondents are resorting to recovery of the amount as envisaged in their sale circular No.U-69/2005 under which the amount on account of additional consumption security could be recovered from the domestic consumers on a bi-monthly billing cycle spread out over a period of 48 months. This sale circular was subjectmatter of challenge in CWP No.12794 of 2008 which was decided on 25.9.2009 upholding the validity of the circular.

¶14

The respondents have now resorted to recovery from the domestic consumers by raising demand in lump-sum. This is the cause of grievance to the petitioners.

¶15

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion

¶16

C.W.P.No.17860 of 2011 -2-

¶17

that the legitimacy of the demand is not in question but it is only the mode and manner of the recovery which is in question. The petitioners complain of an excessive demand which they would be required to meet in one go.

¶18

Considering the limited controversy, I am of the opinion that no writ can be issued in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, keeping in view the interest of justice, the respondents may consider the feasibility of offering the petitioners and other similarly situated persons as them the option of paying the amount in instalments which may spread over to 2 to 4 billing cycles as the decision making authority may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

23.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss

Arun Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

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 Khalsa Agricultural Store, Malerkotla Vs Director Agriculture, Punjab, Chd & Ors.

M/S Aman Securities and Detectives Vs Punjab State Coop, Milk Producers and Anr.

Prem Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Baljinder Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Mandhir Singh Vs Dhbvnl and Ors.