RAJ MANI YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. ENERGY DEPTT. GOVT. LKO AND 6 OTHERS
WRIC/1327/2025 · 2025-02-11
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 122426 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 122426 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8667-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1327 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raj Mani Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Govt. Lko And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Haider Abbas,Sabir Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Jauhari Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard. The petitioner claims to have submitted an application for permanent disconnection of his electricity connection for running a tubewell. However, Shri Manish Jauhari, learned Counsel appearing for the Electricity Corporation says that requirement was to deposit certain money, obtain a receipt of it, and thereafter, the permanent disconnection would be undertaken, which was never done. Therefore, merely saying that an application was filed in 2015 / 2020 will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. However, on being asked as to whether the bill generated or the amount being claimed as arrears of electricity dues, is based on meter reading or otherwise, he could not give any satisfactory reply, obviously because he does not have instructions. The case of the petitioner is that the boring was unusable, therefore, the tube well was never operated, as such, he is not liable to pay any dues. It is, therefore, necessary for the concerned officer to get an enquiry conducted as to whether the demand has been raised based on any meter reading or any fixed charges, and thereafter, to take a decision on the application of the petitioner submitted in 2015 / 2020 if it is available, or on a fresh application to be submitted by the petitioner, as to whether he is liable to pay the electricity dues or not. The concerned officer shall also verify as to whether the electricity connection has been used after 2015 or not. Let such decision be take positively within a period of six weeks. Till then the impugned recovery shall not be given effect. However, if the decision goes against the petitioner, the recovery proceedings would stand restored, subject to further
right of challenge available to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench