Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42661 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sri Krishna Chikitsalaya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-corporation, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2019 whereby the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Jaunpur, namely, respondent no. 3 has directed the petitioner to deposit outstanding dues as per the bill that has accompanied the order impugned.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that once this Court had passed an order on 18.9.2019 passed in Writ-C No. 29638 of 2019 directing the concerned Executive Engineer to decide the matter of the petitioner by passing a fresh order, it was not open for the respondent concerned to have passed an order in the nature of coercive action commanding the petitioner to make necessary deposit towards the electricity bills and this act and conduct of the Executive Engineer concerned is quite contemptible in nature.
Sri Mahbood Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation fairly conceeded that the Executive Engineer concerned ought not have have passed the kind of order that he has passed on 25.10.2019. However, he submits that since he had been working in the supply/transmission division, he is not aware of the legal issues involved in such matters. He submits that he has acted bonafidely as no sooner did he realize his mistake, he passed a reasoned and speaking order on 18.12.2019 addressing the grievance of the petitioner and the petitioner in case is aggrieved by the same, can file appeal/representation before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that an Officer, who is dealing with the files that contain the order of the Court should not have acted so casually. The language as contained in the order dated 25.10.2019 is so couched, it speaks volume about the conduct and behaviour of the Officer concerned, which deserves to be reprimanded. However, because of the fair admission at the end of the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent corporation and the fact that the Office where the concerned respondent is discharging his duties is new to him, we are taking lenient view of the matter. In any case, we find it to be a forced litigation upon the petitioner, therefore, petitioner deserves to be compensated. Accordingly, we are directing that the respondent no. 3 shall deposit a cost of Rs. 15,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner which the petitioner shall communicate to him, within two weeks from today.
We further observe that the petitioner since has an alternative remedy to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum against the order dated 18.12.2019 copy of which has been served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself, the petitioner should challenge the same before the forum concerned.
Accordingly, it is further provided that in case the petitioner files appropriate application before the forum concerned within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered on merit and disposed of within a further period of four weeks.
Until the disposal of the said application, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner by the respondents provided the petitioner continues to pay the current charges against the electricity consumed at his end.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Shiraz