Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6116 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shyam Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Yadav,I. N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Yadav, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Ashutosh Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
2. This is a thoroughly misconceived and ill-advised writ petition and in fact a second writ petition filed with concealing the fact that earlier Writ Petition (C) No.4122 of 2019 filed by petitioner has been dismissed on 07.02.2009.
3. It appears that petitioner was found indulged in theft of electricical energy. A First Information Report was lodged and assessment proceedings were also initiated. Against recovery of assessment amount, petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 4132 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2019 and the order is quoted below:-
"Against the allegation of theft of electricity, provisional assessment has been made and demand notice has been issued to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the electricity department submits that pursuant to the notice for provisional assessment the petitioner did not appear, therefore, demand notice has been issued. It is not clear whether any final assessment has been made or not. The petitioner may file his objection before the Executive Engineer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the proceedings of provisional assessment, the petitioner has already filed his objection before the respondent no.3 yet without deciding the same, demand has been raised even without final assessment.
The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case, the petitioner files fresh objection before the concerned Executive Engineer, he will consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, as far as possible, within one month from today and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law.
For a period of one month, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notices dated 6.9.2018 and 6.11.2018. "
4. Objection has already been filed by petitioner before Authority concerned but it is not on record whether such objection is decided or not. Now this writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a direction to respondent 3 to restore electricity connection of petitioner's private tube-well without making it clear whether assessment has been finalized and petitioner has deposited due amount or not.
5. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 I.A.Siddiqui