Back
2015 Supreme(All) 1767
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajiv Sharma, Rakesh Srivastava, JJ.
Shree Prakash Shukla - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Power Corporation & 3 Ors. - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 06-01-2015
Petitioner’s Counsels - M.P. Singh
Respondent’s Counsel - C.S.C. and Prasant Arora
Availability of alternative remedy under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005
Headnote:
Alternative Remedy - Electricity Bill Dispute - The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy available under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner disputed the electricity bill and approached the court without depositing the requisite bills.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005.
Issues: Dispute over electricity bill, maintainability of the writ petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy provided under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 before approaching the court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy.
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for the Power Corporation.
2. Sri Prashant Arora, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the Power Corporation has not disputed the fact that a domestic electricity connection has been installed in the premises of the petitioner and thereafter necessary bills for the electricity consumed by the petitioner was disputed.
3. The dispute has been raised by the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid bill and as such without depositing the requisite bills the petitioner approach this Hon'ble Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for the Power Corporation that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having efficacious an alternative remedy to avail the provision of 6.5 (b) of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and file a complaint in accordance with law before the authority concerned.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed on the ground alternative remedy.
