In Residence
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6954 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ramesh Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Babu Verma,Anita Singh,Nirmla Kumari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Ms. Anita Singh learned Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and learned Standing counsel for the State respondents through Video Conferencing.
Ms. Anita Singh learned Advocate for the petitioner had invited attention of the Court to page '14' of the paper book to assert that as per ledger of the respondent department from 1st April, 2020 till 2nd February, 2021, there is no outstanding in the name of the petitioner. The supply release date is 31st July, 2005 when allegedly the petitioner was given connection with Tarrif Code No. LMV-5/STN-50 for a load of 12.5 HP. With reference to averments in paragraph '4' of the writ petition, she further submits that the aforesaid connection was disconnected in the month of July, 2013 by the electricity department on the request of the petitioner as Boring connection which was granted in the year 2005, failed. It is then submitted that the petitioner had paid all dues of electricity bill in the year 2016, with reference to averments in paragraph '5' of the writ petition. No provisional assessment notice, however, had been ever served on the petitioner.
Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand, on the basis of the written instructions received by him submits that final assessment notice/demand notice dated 26.5.2018 was sent in the name of the petitioner through registered post, when objection to the provisional assessment notice dated 9.1.2017 was not received by the department.
The contention is that the recovery proceeding had been initiated by the concerned department of the State respondents on the basis of the final demand notice dated 26.5.2018 and the fact that no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
As the dispute raised in the present writ petition is factual in nature, it is not possible for the Court to investigate. Moreso, when there is nothing on record to substantiate the averments with regard to disconnection of boring, connection allegedly granted to the petitioner in the year 2005. It is, however, kept open for the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before respondent no. 3 namely the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Etah, District Etah alongwith the copy of this order within a period of eight weeks from today.
In case, such a representation is given, respondent no. 3 shall decide the same at the earliest, preferably, within a period of four weeks, thereafter, under due intimation to the petitioner.
For a period of two months from today or till the said representation is decided, the State respondents shall not proceed with the sale of agricultural land allegedly attached pursuant to the recovery certificate issued in view of the demand notice dated 26.5.2018.
A copy of this order shall also be provided in the office of the District Magistrate, Etah, who shall do the needful, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 5.5.2021 Brijesh