Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Islam vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 August, 2010
Court No. - 36

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45846 of 2010

Petitioner :- Islam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- O.P. Gupta
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Pankaj Kumar Shukla

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J.

Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
for the State and Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the
respondent no. 2.

The contention of the petitioner is that in the departmental inquiry
the charges of electricity theft has not been established on the
petitioner and, therefore, recovery of Rs. 82,850/- alleged to be
recovered from the petitioner is wrong. Reliance has been placed
in the inquiry report dated 15.9.2008 which has been filed as
Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that matter requires

Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 has been accepted
by learned Standing Counsel. Notice on behalf of respondent no. 2
has been accepted by Sri Mahendra Narain Singh, Advocate.

Learned counsel for the respondents pray for and are allowed two
weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,
may be filed within a week thereafter.

List after the expiry of the aforesaid period.

As an interim measure, recovery proceedings pursuant to the
demand notice dated 7.10.2008 shall remain stayed.

When the case is listed again the name of Sri Mahendra Narain
Singh may be shown as learned counsel for the respondents.

Order Date :- 9.8.2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.164 seconds.