Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1546 (ALL)

Abhay Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.

2019-06-28

ANIL KUMAR, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ. 1. Sri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit. The same is taken on record. N 2. Heard Sri Bal Keshwar-Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vasisht Muni Misra holding brief of Sri Shree Prakash Singh, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 and perused the record. 3. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that a commercial connection No. 095891/1205 has been provided by U.P. Power Corporation Limited in the premises where the petitioner is running his business. 4. As per the case of the petitioner, there was some defect in the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner and on the basis of which a wrong electricity bill was sent to the petitioner as such he made an application to opposite party No. 4/Executive Engineer (Prescribed Authority) Electricity Distribution Division, Raniganj, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, District Pratapgarh for One Time Settlement for a decision on said bill sent to him by the electricity department after completing necessary formalities and he also wrote a letter to the concerned authority of U.P. Power Corporation for change of meter. 5. It is further submitted that meter bearing No. 21076/421076 installed in the premises of the petitioner on 5.9.2018 was also faulty one, so he raised a grievance in this regard and also requested the opposite party No. 4 to settle the dispute of the petitioner on an application requesting him for One Time Settlement but no heed has been paid by the authority concerned on the one hand and on the other hand recovery citation amounting to Rs.33,18,200 (Annexure-1) has been issued in a most arbitrary manner and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner again approached opposite party No. 4 and requested that his application for One Time Settlement be decided. 6. Without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, it is provided that aforementioned application for One Time Settlement be decided by opposite party No. 4 within a period of four weeks from today after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. 6. Without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, it is provided that aforementioned application for One Time Settlement be decided by opposite party No. 4 within a period of four weeks from today after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. For a period of four weeks or till the decision taken by opposite party No. 4 on One Time Settlement whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to order impugned. 8. The opposite party No. 4 would be at liberty to proceed afresh on the basis of decision taken on the application moved by the petitioner for One Time Settlement thereafter. 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.