Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 8 (ALL)

Gaya Prasad v. State of U. P. and Others

2013-01-02

HET SINGH YADAV, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2013
Het Singh Yadav, J.— Pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2012, the case has been put today as a fresh case. Mr. M.N. Qureshi holding brief for Shri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that instructions have been received in the present case. The present Writ Petition has been filed, interalia, praying that direction be given to the Respondent -Authority to issue revised and correct Electricity Bill in the name of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the electricity connection was granted in favour of the petitioner on 16.11.2006. However, instead of issuing the Electricity Bill in the name of the petitioner, the Electricity Blls were being issued in the name of Radhey Shyam, though the Service Connection Number mentioned in such Bills was that of the petitioner. It is further averred in the Writ Petition that despite repeated representations, no action was taken by the concerned respondents to issue the correct and revised Bill in the name of the petitioner. Copy of the Electricity Bill dated 1.11.2012 issued in the name of Radhey Shyam has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the Writ petition and relief has been sought for quashing the said Bill. Shri M.N. Qureshi holding brief for Shri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, on the basis of instructions received by Shri Mahboob Ahmad, states that the Electricity Bill has now been corrected and issued in the name of the petitioner. Shri Dinesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the Electricity Bill has now been issued in the name of the petitioner. However, he submits that the surcharge imposed in the Bill issued in the name of the petitioner can not be imposed on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Shri Dinesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the Electricity Bill has now been issued in the name of the petitioner. However, he submits that the surcharge imposed in the Bill issued in the name of the petitioner can not be imposed on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. In view of the narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the prayer made in the Writ Petition for issuing the Electricity Bill in the name of the petitioner has already been granted as the Electricity Bill dated 1.11.2012 in the name of Radhey Shyam, copy whereof has been flied as Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition, no longer exists in view of the issuance of the fresh Bill in the name of the petitioner and as such, the prayer for quashing the said Electricity Bill in the name of Radhey Shyam has become infructuous. In view of the above, no orders are required to be passed in the present Writ Petition. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the Bill issued in his name as mentioned above, it will be open for the petitioner to pursue such remedy as may be available to the petitioner under law before appropriate forum for seeking appropriate reliefs for redressal of his alleged grievances in respect of such Bill. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. _____________