High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Brimco Engineering Industry v. State Of U.P. Thru' D.M./Collector & Others - WRIT - C No. 9946 of 2003  RD-AH 32 (6 March 2003)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9946 of 2003
M/S Brimco Engineering Industry vs State of U.P.& others
Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.
Hon'ble D.R. Chaudhary, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the General Manager, U.P. Power Corporation, Kanpur as respondent no.4 in the array of parties.
In the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the recovery certificate dated 18.2.20023 (Annexure 1) issued by respondent no.1 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,71,114/- towards energy charges.
It appears that, on a raid conducted on 11.9.2001, the petitioner was found consuming extra load than the sanctioned. It was also found that he was providing electricity to the adjoining unit of M/s C.D. Wire Industry. Accordingly, after assessment, a bill of Rs.8,15,400/- was sent to the petitioner and since it failed to deposit the aforesaid amount the recovery certificate has been issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the bill they have made assessment at the rate of 300 per H.P. for the last six months and have also imposed penalty, which is three times more to the bill for the electricity alleged to have been consumed by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner, being aggrieved with the above bill, has preferred an appeal under Regulation 23(2) of the U.P. Consumer Regulation Act, 1984 (in short 'the Act') before the General Manager, U.P. Power Corporation, Kanpur (respondent no.4), which has not been disposed of and, therefore, the respondents cannot take step for recovery of the amount without deciding his appeal.
On the other hand, Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Power Corporation submitted that the above appeal of the petitioner shall be disposed of on merit at an early date. It is also submitted that a consumer preferring appeal under Regulation 23(2) of the Act is required to deposit the entire amount of the disputed bill at the time of filing of the appeal and since the petitioner did not deposit the same his appeal is not being decided.
Be that as it may, looking to the facts of the case and considering the submissions, we dispose of this petition, at this stage, with the direction that in the event the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Five Thousand only) within two weeks against the recovery of Rs.2,71,114/-, the newly added respondent no.4 shall dispose of the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner within four weeks thereafter after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other necessary parties. The recovery proceeding shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks. However, if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within two weeks, as indicated above, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and it would be open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.