Shibbo vs State of U.P. and Others

Connect with Writ Petition No. 66330 of 2011.

Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Rajesh Tripathi for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. They pray for and are granted a month''s time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List immediately thereafter.

The case of the petitioner is that on 27.11.2009 the respondent-Corporation raised a demand of a sum of Rs. 17,167/-for installation of an electricity connection and on the said amount having been deposited the electricity connection was granted to the petitioner for running 10 Horse Power Nalkoop. The petitioner states that he has been paying regular bills but still a demand notice of Rs. 74,985/-has been issued to him on 21.7.2011, which has been revised to Rs. 1,09,685/-by a fresh demand notice dated 1.12.2011. The said demand has been raised on account of less deposit at the time of service connection having been granted to the petitioner. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the entire amount as had been demanded at the time of grant of electricity connection was paid and after two years the respondent authorities cannot turn around and raise fresh bills, which is for more than three to four times of the demand, which was initially raised. It is also submitted that prior to the issuance of the demand, no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim protection.

Accordingly, it is provided that recovery against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders dated 21.7.2011 and 1.12.2011 issued by the respondent No. 3 shall remain stayed.