Allahabad High Court
Harish Chand vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others on 9 August, 2021
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis, Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17966 of 2021 Petitioner :- Harish Chand Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chetan Chatterjee Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
The case of the petitioner is that the electricity connection obtained by him was used from 1990 to 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner further claims to have separated from the joint family and obtained a fresh connection in his name on 11.09.2002. There is no default with respect to the second/fresh electricity connection.
After 19 years, on 06.03.2021, a fresh recovery citation for Rs. 2,08,262/- has been raised against the petitioner for the old electricity connection, obtained by him in the year 1990. This is stated to be wholly without basis inasmuch as relying on the statement of account, maintained by the respondent-Corporation, it has been submitted that up to 2010, no amount was shown as arrears, whereas, Rs. 4635.80 was shown as arrears on 29.6.2012. Thereafter, on 7.8.2012, the arrears suddenly jumped up to Rs. 1,10,216/- which have finally been reflected in the recovery citation dated 6.3.2021 as Rs. 2,08,262/-.
Thus, it has been submitted that the recovery citation is wholly unjustified and the petitioner also claims to have deposited Rs. 30,000/- towards the aforesaid disputed demand, through recovery process.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the corporation submits that there has been no permanent disconnection of the earlier electricity connection obtained by the petitioner and that account statement had not been updated for a long period, which resulted in the arrears being disclosed as nil on 22.02.2010.
Be that as it may, the facts involved in the present petition are disputed which may not be ideally gone into the writ proceedings. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit, at this stage.
In the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above and without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case, the petitioner files a fresh objection along with a copy of this order and proof of deposit of Rs. 30,000/- (deposited during the recovery proceedings) before the respondent no. 3 within a period of two weeks' from today, the said respondent shall proceed and fix the case for hearing within a period of two weeks' thereafter, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
For a period of two months' from today or till disposal of the aforesaid objection, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the petitioner, subject to his complying with the terms of this order.
All further recovery shall abide by the decision to be made by the respondent-corporation.
Order Date :- 9.8.2021/Saurabh