Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 51882 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 455 (21 November 2003)

 

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. 51882 OF 2003

Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari ------                    Petitioner

Vs.

State of U.P. & ors. ------                  Respondents

      ______

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

Hon'ble D.P.Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice of electricity dues dated 6.2.2003, issued by respondent no. 2 (Annex. 3) and also for directing responent no. 2 not to take any coercive measure for realizing electricity dues against the petitioner till the pendency of the criminal case for the same cause of action.

It is contended that on 6.2.2003 respondent inspected the various premises and wrongly and falsely implicated thepetitioner in a case of electricity theft and for the same F.I.R. was lodged against several persons including petitioner as a Case Crime No. 494 of 2002, under Sections 39(3), 6/40 and 49-B of the Indian Electricity Act. Respondents also assessed the applicant and issued the notice dated 6.2.2003 demanding electricity dues of Rs.1,63,173.10 and also issued recovery notice. The contention is that as the criminal proceedings are pending, therefore, respondents cannot recover the electricity dues assessed by them. It was contended that in fact, he was operating wih his own generator.

Learned Standing Counsel  contended that criminal case is entirely different than civil liability. The standard of proof in both the cases are different. Criminal prosecution will be for committing the electricity theft which is an offence while the electricity which was consumed by theft has to be paid by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has no merit.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

We are of the considered opinion that petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Both liabilities are different. Even in certain cases of acqittal in criminal proceedings civil liability continues.

Petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

21.11.2003

AKSI


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.