Allahabad High Court
Smt. Santosh Kumari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 December, 2022
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33059 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Santosh Kumari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mukesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 28-6-2022 amounting to Rs. 3,58,953/- (Annexure No. 15) issued by respondent no. 2 after summoning its recovery citation/record as contained in letter dated 11-10-2022."
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the petitioner's objection dated 12-11-2020 after depositing Rs. one lac as per order dated 15.7.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ-C No. 12723 of 2022."
This is fifth writ petition filed by the petitioner herein challenging the demand raised by the department from time to time.
It is submitted in the writ petition that the petitioner falls under the B.P.L. category and she has taken a domestic electricity connection on 30.7.2007 with the load of 1K.W. but she had never used the electricity due to non-availability of the L.T. line of the department. The street light of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bilsi was available and the same cannot be utilized due to objection of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bilsi, Budaun.
The submission, thus, is that the petitioner did not use electricity any time till it was disconnected on 24.1.2008.
The demand notice dated 28.9.2018 was served upon the petitioner against which he filed a Writ-C No. 34740 of 2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2018 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer concerned by filing objection under the provisions of clause 6.5 of the U.P. Electricity Code, 2005.
The contention is that the petitioner filed an objection dated 28.11.2018 but without deciding the same, another demand notice dated 12.12.2018/15.12.2018 was served upon the petitioner, which was challenged in another Writ-C No. 1950 of 2019.
The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 31.1.2019 quashing the demand notice directing the Executive Engineer to consider and decide the objections of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of the order.
It is submitted in the writ petition that the objections of the petitioner were not decided and hence a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner herein namely Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4103 of 2019, which was disposed of on 11.7.2019 granting liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application which was required to be decided by the opposite party, in accordance with law.
A fresh demand notice dated 31.10.2020 for an amount of Rs. 2,71,884/- was served upon the petitioner which was challenged in Writ-C 12723 of 2022. The said writ petition was decided vide order dated 15.7.2022 taking note of the previous grounds of litigation instituted by the petitioner herein and it was noted that the order dated 31.10.2020 was passed during the times of Pandemic Covid-19 and that fact itself show that the objections of the petitioner were not considered and there was no detail order dealing with the objections of the petitioner.
Noticing the said fact, the Court had permitted the petitioner to file a fresh objection taking all the grounds as may be available to her within a period of two weeks along with the certified copy of the order dated 15.7.2022 and with the proof of deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards dues.
In the event, the objections/representations were required to be decided within the stipulated time.
Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh learned Advocate for the respondent-department categorically stated that the petitioner has not complied with the order passed by this Court and the condition therein to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to maintain her objection. In paragraph '16' of the writ petition, the petitioner has casually stated that the respondent no. 3 had denied to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- but at no point of time, any contempt petition was filed by the petitioner pleading non-violation of the directions issued by this Court at the ends of the respondents.
The present recovery citation has, thus, been issued on 28.6.2022 reiterating the demand which was initially issued in the year 2018.
Taking note of the averments made in the writ petition and the manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court time and again and further she has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 15.7.2022, we do not find any good ground to sustain the challenge to the recovery citation, subject matter of challenge herein.
In any case, the plea of the petitioner that she though got electricity connection on 30.7.2007 but had not utilized the electricity and it was got disconnected on 24.1.2008 is without any substance. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the petitioner has never paid a single penny towards electricity bill for the electricity connection which she obtained on 30.7.2007.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, it is open for the petitioner to file an appeal against the demand raised by the respondent, under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Order Date :- 6.12.2022
Brijesh
