Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25899 of 2019 Petitioner :- Irfan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Punita Pandey,Shweta Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Ms. Shweta Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for respondents no. 2 and 3.
The petitioner was served with a demand notice dated 25.4.2019 for a sum of Rs. 8,70,072/- as arrears of electricity charges. Now the petitioner has been served with a recovery citation dated 26.6.2019 for a sum of Rs. 7,75,794/- plus interest.
In challenging the above demand notice as well as the recovery citation the submission is that the petitioner has already approached the District Consumer Forum vide application no. 102 of 2019 challenging the demand notice dated 25.4.2019 and therefore till the said complaint is decided the respondents be restrained from realizing any amount from the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner has raised his grievance before the Consumer forum but wants a stay order from this Court, the writ petition as such is only for the purpose of grant of interim order.
The petitioner has a remedy of moving an application for stay of proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and as such if the petitioner is facing recovery in respect of the demand notice which is under challenge before the District Consumer Forum, the proper remedy available to him is to seek redressal before the Forum itself.
The writ petition as such is misconceived and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 SKS