Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S JAGANNATH STEEL (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER versus PURVANCHAL VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LTD. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Jagannath Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. And Another v. Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. And Others - WRIT - C No. 1176 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 558 (9 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1176 of 2006

M/s. Jagannath Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr.

Versus

Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

The contention raised by the petitioners in the present petition is that the respondents are not justified in requiring the petitioners to deposit the minimum charges  bill to the extent of Rs. 2,69,298/- as during the intervening period, the electricity was not supplied to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in such circumstances, the demand notice issued under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues recovery) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the ''Act') requiring the petitioners to deposit the said amount within thirty days, is bad in law.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri W.H. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners may file an appropriate representation before the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 for redressal of the grievances sought to be raised in the present petition. Therefore, this petition should not be entertained.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the petitioners may file an appropriate application before the Competent Authority under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and in case such an application is filed, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the said Authority.

We are further of the opinion that as the notice dated 26.11.2005 has been issued under Section 3 of the Act, the same shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the application to be filed by the petitioners before the Competent Authority and the amount of recovery shall depend upon the fate of the application.

09.01.2006

AHA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.