Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25652 of 2016 Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hafeez Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suman Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. We have heard Dr. Suman Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.
The sole petitioner died and has now been substituted by his widow and son vide order dated 26th September, 2016. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to realization of electricity dues to the extent of Rs. 78,132/-.
From the facts as on record, it appears that it is not a case of theft as no FIR under Section 135 appears to have been lodged.
The case, therefore. appears to be one of provisional assessment and consequential recovery.
It also appears from the record that the final assessment order does not appear to have been passed formally, and the provisional assessment has been treated to be final in pursuance whereof the recovery proceedings have been initiated and the citation dated 17th March, 2016 has been issued.
A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20th July, 2016 had stayed the recovery proceedings.
Having perused the records and having heard Sri Sumar Kumar Yadav,learned counsel for the respondents, we are satisfied that unless there is a final assessment order passed the recovery can not ensue. Consequently, the impugned citation dated 07.03.2016 is hereby quashed.
It shall be open to the respondent no.3 Executive Engineer to proceed to pass a final assessment order, after putting the heirs of the petitioner to notice who have already been substituted in the present writ petition, and if the petitioners are still aggrieved, it is open to them to seek their remedy under the act and rules accordingly.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 M. ARIF