IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, JAYANT BANERJI, JJ.
Puttan – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Writ C. No. 27495 Of 2021, Writ C. No. 23674 Of 2021, Writ C. No. 1786 Of 2022, Writ C. No. 1858 Of 2022
Decided On : 01-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. creation of fictitious demands by electricity suppliers. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. harassment of consumers through false demands. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. illegal connections and inflated dues for consumers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. need for regulation and adherence to standards in billing. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 5. legal remedies and compensation for consumers due to illegal practices. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT :
(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.)
1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Arti Raje, Sushil Kumar Pandey, Gaurav Singh and Krishna Agarawal, learned counsels for the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd./Associated Power Distribution Companies, namely Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Rampur, Dakashinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jhansi etc. and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawaha, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Since number of writ petitions were coming up daily before this Court raising grievances of creation of fake bills/demands or highly excessive demands by the respondents, therefore, this Court took up one writ petition each on 8th 9th and 10th February, 2022 and called upon the respondents to respond to the contentions of the petitioners. Personal affidavit by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow has been filed mainly in Writ-C No.27495 of 2021. Brief facts of each writ petitions are being noted below.
Facts:- Writ-C No.27495 of 2021
3. Aggrieved with creation of fake and fictitious demand of Rs.29,60,202/- by demand notice dated 27.07.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 which was subsequently raised to Rs.31,47,731/- for the period from January, 2017 to November, 2021; the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the demand notice. Copy of the ledger account filed by the respondent No.2 as Annexure CA-4 along with the aforesaid counter affidavit, revealed that the respondents debited monthly electricity dues in the account of the petitioner ranging from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.6,15,472/- per month. Considering the facts of the case, this Court passed detailed orders on 08.02.2022, 15.02.2022, 03.03.2022, 24.03.2022, 19.04.2022, 26.04.2022 and 05.05.2022. On 09.02.2022, the respondent No.2 stated before this Court that the demand of Rs.31,47,731/- was wrongly created and it has been modified to Rs.2,45,952/-. In paragraphs-6, 7, 8 and 9 of the order dated 03.03.2022, this court observed as under:
“6. The personal affidavit filed by the Managing Director of Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Meerut, U.P. is more or less reiteration of the aforesaid personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary. He has also admitted in his personal affidavit the prevailing situation of errors in the consumer ledger, raising of fictitious demands, several lapses on the part of officers of the Electricity Distribution Division and dereliction of duties, negligence in performance of duties by the officers and employees and existence of fictitious arrears against consumers.
7. From the aforesaid two personal affidavits, it appear that an isolated decision against some officers of the respondent No. 2 i.e. Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Milakh, District Rampur has been taken, but nothing has been stated about the situation prevailing in the Power Distribution Corporation in the whole State of Uttar Pradesh. To give instances, Writ C No. 23674 of 2021, relates to a consumer of District Jhansi falling under Vidyut Vitaran Khand, Mauranipur, District Jhansi of Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited filed against fictitious demand and recovery certificate of Rs. 4,83,103.00. The above noted connected Writ-C No. 1786 of 2022 relates to a consumer of District Mirzapur falling under Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited/Electricity Distribution Sub-Division-II, Fataha, District Mirzapur, challenging fictitious demand and harassment caused by arrest. The connected Writ-C No. 1858 of 2022 relates to a consume
N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994) 6 SCC 205
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and others
Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (1996) 6 SCC 558
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction and Another AIR 1996 SC 715
Mohammad Iqbal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and others 2016 (9) ADJ 593
Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2002
Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243
Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 1
State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and others (1995) 5 SCC 659
Chief Conservator of Forests and another (1996) 2 SCC 293
S.P. Goel vs Collector Of Stamps
Common Cause A. Registered Society Vs. Union of India JT 1999 (5) SC 237: AIR 1999 SC 2979
State of A.P. Vs. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy and others (2000) 5 SCC 712
Research Foundation for Science (10) Vs. Union of India (2005) 13 SCC 659
M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 3 SCC 399
Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (2008) 9 SCC 527
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Ram Narayan Agrawal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2019)1 SCC 1
AI
Breach of public peace - Detention by police - Security bond for keeping the peace - Petitioner entitled for compensation for illegal detention.
The judgment underscores the requirement for genuine public interest and bona fide intentions in filing a public interest litigation, as well as the need to prevent the abuse of the jurisdiction of p....
Departmental proceedings against retired employees must comply with Article 351-A, requiring Governor's sanction and adherence to time limits for validity.
Public servants are protected under S.199(2) when allegations relate to their public duties, extending the definition of 'public servant' to include statutory officers.
The validity of electricity supply regulations was upheld; the court emphasized the necessity for natural justice, quashing vague notices and orders lacking due process.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice in administrative inquiries, quashing the recovery order due to jurisdictional flaws.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.