Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42058 of 2018 Petitioner :- Seema Shukla Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Vijay Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petitioner has preferred this petition against the demand notice dated 19.09.2018 issued by the Executive Engineer for realizing electricity dues of Rs. 64,695/- from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the directions of the District Consumer Forum, the respondent No.2 was obliged to give a correct copy of the electricity bill but without providing the same, straightaway the impugned demand/recovery has been sent.
Sri Ravi Agrawal, on the basis of instructions, submits that in compliance with the directions of the District Consumer Forum, a revised and correct bill was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has even made an application to the Consumer Forum against the same.
In view of the above, petitioner is fully aware of the revised correct bill and the contention that the bill was not provided to the petitioner before issuing the impugned notice/citation is incorrect.
In view of the above, the writ petition has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Nirmal