Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 725 (ALL)

Navneet Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2020-03-05

AJIT KUMAR, RAMESH SINHA

body2020
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar, JJ. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus for the restoration of the electricity connection and supply to his house and has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.2.2020 passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner has been directed to make necessary deposit of Rs. 37,788, in respect of which he had already issued a cheque which got dishonoured. 3. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a serious error in the assessment of the electricity charge and, therefore, the bill of electricity is required to be corrected. He further submits that there cannot be a case of final assessment in a theft case as there is no first information report registered against the petitioner till date. 4. Be that as it may, what we find from the documents brought on record, is that the petitioner had earlier himself voluntarily agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 37,788 and had issued the cheque which got dishonoured and so in equity the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of the nature he has prayed for without depositing certain amount towards the outstanding dues. Even the consideration of the grievance of the petitioner as is sought to be raised, can be directed for only after the petitioner deposits the certain amount of the outstanding dues. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to make 50% deposit of the amount of the outstanding dues within a period of two weeks. 6. To this above request, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection provided petitioner honours the undertaking being advanced in his behalf, in the court today. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to make deposit of 50% of the outstanding dues of Rs. 6. To this above request, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection provided petitioner honours the undertaking being advanced in his behalf, in the court today. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to make deposit of 50% of the outstanding dues of Rs. 37,788 alongwith a comprehensive representation raising his grievance within a period of two weeks from today and in case if any such amount is deposited, as directed here-in-above, the electricity supply to the petitioner's connection shall be restored forthwith. It is further directed that in case any representation is filed, as directed here-in-above, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the respondent No. 3, namely, Executive Engineer by means of a reasoned and speaking order and balance amount if further is assessed to be justified, a fresh order to that effect shall be passed. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the concerned Executive Engineer, respondent No. 3, in disposing of the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order alongwith the representation. 8. However, we further provide that in the event of default on the part of the petitioner in making deposit of 50% of the outstanding dues, as directed here-in-above, the respondents shall be at a liberty to proceed in accordance with law and no second writ petition shall be entertained in the matter.