Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25247 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kaushal Kumar Maurya Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha,Prabhakar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs;
1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned demand Notice No. 1981 dated 16.8.2010 issued by the Executive Engineer, Prescribed Authority, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Fatehpur.
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents, electricity authority not to proceed with the recovery proceeding with regard to demand Notice No. 1981 dated 16.8.2010 issued by the Executive Engineer, Prescribed Authority, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Vitran Khand, Fatehpur.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the Electricity Department and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was merely a tenant of the disputed premises from 5.1.2010 to 5.4.2010 (i.e. 3 months). He neither committed any theft of electricity nor he ever used the electricity for commercial purposes. While referring to the inspection report dated 10.3.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is no whisper about him in the said report although the name of the landlord Chandra Prakash Lodhi in whose name the electric meter stood has been mentioned. He further submitted that no opportunity of any nature was given to the petitioner, still a demand notice dated 16.8.2010 has been issued against him for recovering Rs. 37,668/- According to the petitioner, the demand/recovery notice is per se illegal and is liable to be quashed.
After arguing the matter for quite some time, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that he may be permitted to make a fresh representation before the concerned authority in respect of his grievances with a direction to the concerned authority to decide the same within a stipulated period.
To this, Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the Electricity Department has stated that he has no objection if case any such representation is filed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation/objection before the Respondent No. 4, Executive Engineer ventilating his grievances along with adducing his evidence, if any, within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order enclosing therewith a copy of the writ petition and its Annexures and, if any such representation is made, the said authority shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as the Chandra Prakash, Respondent No. 5, landlord/owner of the premises in question in whose name the electric meter was installed, expeditiously, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the said representation.
For a period of four months from today or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, no recovery shall be made against the petitioner in pursuance of the demand notice dated 16.8.2010 issued by the Executive Engineer, Respondent No. 4.
With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 vinay