Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Farid Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru' Chairman U.P.P.C.L. & Others - WRIT - C No. 32044 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 3493 (24 September 2005)


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).


W.P. No. 32044 of 2003

W.P. No. 61780 of 2005

The Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation had issued recovery on 14.5.2003 against the petitioner. He filed an objection  against the same on 10.7.2003 before the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Khand II, Ghaziabad. When this objection was not decided  he filed Writ Petition no. 32044 of 2003. This writ petition was dismissed for default 10.10.2003.  The petitioner filed an application  to recall this order. During pendency of this recall application  the Corporation again started  recovery proceedings. Then the petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 61780 of 2005.

We have heard   counsel for the petitioner,   Standing Counsel and Sri   W.H. Khan for  the respondents.

The order dated 10.10.2003 dismissing  the Writ Petition no. 32044 of 2003 has been recalled today vide  order of date recorded on the ordersheet of  this writ petition. In this writ petition the petitioner has already filed an objection before the Executive Engineer, respondent no. 4.   It would be appropriate  that the  objection given by the petitioner may be decided  by the said respondent   by a reasoned order at an early date,  if possible, within two weeks  from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner  along with certified copy of this order will also file a copy of his aforesaid objection, other  necessary  documents and a duly stamped self addressed envelope. The concerned   authority   after taking   decision will  communicate the same to the petitioner.

Writ Petition no.61780 of 2005 is against the same recovery. As we have already decided  first writ petition, second writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

With these observations the Writ Petition  no. 32044 of 2003 is  disposed of and Writ Petition no. 61780 of 2005  is dismissed.




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


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 |

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