Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40780 of 2010 Petitioner :- Kamru Zama Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Rai,Chandan Sharma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,H.P. Dube Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri
B.P. Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri H.P. Dube, Advocate, appearing
for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the
similar set of facts, this Court disposed of the matter, copy of the order passed
on 7.7.2010 in Writ Petition No. 38938 of 2010has been annexed as
“annexure 9” to the writ petition.
By this writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing of the recovery
certificate as well as electricity bill dated 14.04.2010 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2
respectively to the writ petition).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted
commercial electricity connection of 2 Kw in the year 1993 for running power
loom. He further submits that the Government Orders were issued on
23.6.1999 and 20.6.2006 with regard to power loom. It has been submitted
that incorrect bill has been given to the petitioner and in pursuance there of
undated recovery certificate has also been sent to the Collector. He further
submits that the petitioner wants to take the benefit of one time settlement
scheme by depositing one thousand rupees and he is also willing to deposit
the correct dues. In this regard he has submitted a detailed representation
dated 2.4.2010 to to the Executing Engineer-respondent no. 4.
We are of the view that no ends of justice be subserved in keeping the writ
petition pending or calling for the counter affidavit.
We dispose of the writ petition with direction to the respondent no. 4 to
consider and take appropriate decision on the application dated 2.4.2010 as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within six week from the date of the
production of the certified copy of this order before him. Till the decision is
taken by the respondent no. 4 on the said application, the recovery certificate
shall be kept in abeyance. We, however, make it clear that after the decision is
taken by the respondent no. 4, it shall be open to him to proceed in accordance
with law.
Order Date :- 15.7.2010
Prabhat