Sunil Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39895 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sunil Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyanka Yadav,Sidh Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.

¶1Instructions filed today be kept on record.

¶2The Electricty Department upon finding that the petitioner had indulged in theft of electricity had issued a provisional assessment notice dated 23.1.2021. This notice was replied to by the petitioner on 4.2.2021. The petitioner when was being troubled by a recovery citation dated 11.7.2022 demanding Rs.46,993/-, approached this Court by means of the instant writ petition.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Department has handed over to the Court a final assessment order dated

25.2.2022. A copy of this order has also been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the final assessment order does not even whisper about the reply which the petitioner had given and, therefore, he submits that the reply of the petitioner was not considered at all.

¶5The Court has also gone through the reply of the petitioner and has perused the order dated 25.2.2022. We do find that none of the issues, which were raised by the petitioner in his reply, has been considered. Even though this order has not been impugned in the instant writ petition, we do find that the order dated 25.2.2022 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶6Under such circumstances, we quash the final assessment order dated 25.2.2022 and remit the matter back to the Executive Engineer for a re-consideration. Further, it is ordered that the petitioner be given an opportunity to reply to the provisional notice which was dated 23.1.2021, on or before

14.12.2023. The Electricity Department shall, thereafter, after considering the reply, adjudicate upon the rights of the petitioner within the next two months. Needless to mention that before the order is passed, the petitioner be also granted a personal hearing. For a period of two months or till a decision is taken by the Executive Engineer, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶7With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Order Date :- 21.11.2023 GS (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad