Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Dilip B. Bhosale, CJ., Yashwant Varma, J.
Vimal Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
Executive Engineer, Dakshinanchal Electricity Dist. Nigam - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 44193 of 2017
Decided On : 21-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vijay Singh Gour
For the Respondent: Baleshwar Chaturvedi
The U.P. Electricity Supply Code 2005 provides a detailed mechanism for adjudication and disposal of disputes related to unauthorized extraction of electricity, and the prescribed procedure must be followed for challenging assessments on merits.
Headnote:
Electricity Supply Code - Dispute Resolution - The court found that the U.P. Electricity Supply Code 2005 provides a detailed mechanism for adjudication and disposal of disputes related to unauthorized extraction of electricity. The petitioner was directed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Code for challenging the assessment on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a consumer of the first respondent, was provisionally assessed for unauthorized extraction of electricity, leading to a raised demand against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to follow the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code 2005 for challenging the assessment on merits. Additionally, the petitioner was given the opportunity for restoration of the electricity connection upon depositing 50% of the total amount claimed as due and payable.
Issues: Provisional assessment for unauthorized extraction of electricity, demand raised against the petitioner, and restoration of electricity connection.
Ratio Decidendi: The U.P. Electricity Supply Code 2005 provides a detailed mechanism for adjudication and disposal of disputes related to unauthorized extraction of electricity. The petitioner must follow the procedure prescribed under the Code for challenging the assessment on merits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to deposit 50% of the total amount claimed as due and payable within a period of two weeks for the first respondent to consider the claim and pass appropriate orders.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner, a consumer of the first respondent, has been provisionally assessed for having extracted electricity unauthorisedly. Pursuant to the provisional assessment, the respondents have also raised a demand against him.
3. We find that the U.P. Electricity Supply Code 2005 puts in place a detailed mechanism for adjudication and disposal of such disputes and claims. The procedure prescribed under the Code would therefore have to be followed by the petitioner in case he chooses to challenge the assessment on merits.
4. In respect of the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the electricity connection, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in case the petitioner deposits 50% of the total amount claimed as due and payable within reasonable time, the respondent would consider his prayer for restoration and re-connection.
5. Accordingly and with the consent of parties, this writ petition shall stand disposed of with a direction providing that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the total amount claimed as due and payable within a period of two weeks from today. If such a deposit is made, the first respondent may consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in respect thereof with expedition.
