Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17849 of 2021 Petitioner :- Kalpana Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archit Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today, taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Archit Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State.
3. Present petition has been filed seeking directions to quash the provisional assessment order dated 17.11.2020 and to reconnect the petitioner's electricity connection and also for other relief.
4. Primarily, the petitioner disputes the allegation of theft made against her. In that regard, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no inspection took place on 07.11.2020 and that the electricity connection was disconnected, for the first time, on 08.11.2020. Then, it has been submitted that the allegation of theft was made against the husband of the petitioner in the First Information Report being FIR No. 3414 dated 04.12.2020. That FIR is stated to be wholly belated. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisional assessment order dated 17.11.2020 was not served on the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation contends that there is ample evidence of theft against the electricity connection standing in the name of the present petitioner. He has referred to the two FIRs lodged with respect to the two incidents of theft dated 07.11.2020 and 29.12.2020 made against the petitioner and her husband. Also, it has been submitted that in absence of any objection filed to the provisional assessment order, the demand of electricity dues of Rs. 6,96,276/- has become final.
6. Thus, it is clear that there are factual issues involved in the present case, which may appropriately be examined by the statutory authorities. Also, it cannot be disputed that, at present, the demand is being pressed in pursuance of the provisional assessment order. Also, proceeding appears to have been filed before the Electricity Ombudsman on 15.07.2021.
7. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already approached the Electricity Ombudsman, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We also do not appreciate the conduct and approach of the petitioner, in first approaching the Electricity Ombudsman and thereafter filing the present petition, which fact has been disclosed for the first time, in the supplementary affidavit filed by her and not in the writ petition.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 AHA