REMAINING CASES OF OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER-2020

PURVANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

(LIST OF DECIDED CASES)
Sl. Case No. Parties Name Counsel Fee, Case Status & Operative portion of the Order
No. District & Division Clerkage &
Certified Copy
ALLAHABAD
1. C. M.W.P. No 17501/20 Ram Chandra Rawat Vs. Rs.6000/- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he intends
Allahabad State of U.P. and another. Rs. 900/- to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file proper
(EUDD) Rs. 300/- petition with better particulars. Sri Mahboob Ahmad,
Naini Rs.7200/-
learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, has no
objection to such prayer. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ
petition.
Dismissed 02.11.2020
2. C. M.W.P. No. 16338/20 Najmi Rahman Vs. Rs.6000/- In view of aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on
Allahabad Purvanchal Electricity Rs. 900/- the merits of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition
EDD Rs. 300/- is disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to decide the
Transmission Nigam Ltd. and
Mayohall Rs.7200/- representation of the petitioner in accordance with law,
2 others.
expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this order alongwith the
representation. The petitioner shall also file a copy of his
appeal before respondent no.2 alongwith the
representation.
Disposed of 04.11.2020
3. C. M.W.P. No 16339/20 Rahul Tiwari Vs. State of Rs.6000/- Learned counsel for the respondents- Power Corporation
Allahabad U.P. and 2 others. Rs. 900/- submits that such prayer of the petitioner is under
( EDD- ) Rs. 300/- consideration before the respondent no.2 and appropriate
Handia Rs.7200/-
order shall be passed in accordance with law within
stipulated period. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and the statement so made by learned counsel
for the respondentsPower Corporation, the writ petition is
disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 to
consider the grievance of the petitioner for providing
electricity connection for the pumping set installed by
him, by passing an appropriate order within a period of
four weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this
order.
Disposed of 11.11.2020
4. C. M.W.P. No 18256/20 Saead Khan Vs. State of U.P. Rs.6000/- In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on
Allahabad and others. Rs. 900/- the merits of the case, it is provided that the petitioner
(EUDD-) Rs. 300/- shall prefer an objection to the provisional assessment
Kalyani Devi Rs.7200/-
within 15 days from today before the respondent no.3. In
case such objection is filed by the petitioner before the
concerned respondent, the same shall be considered and
decided, in accordance with law, within a further period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of the objection along
with a copy of this order. For a period of six weeks or till
the objection filed by the petitioner against the
 provisional assessment before the respondent no.3 is
decided, whichever is earlier, the recovery proceedings
against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned demand
notice dated 29.8.2020 (Annexure No.6 to the writ
petition), shall remain kept in abeyance and shall abide
with the order which may be passed by the respondent
no.3 on the petitioner's objection.
Disposed of 11.11.2020
5. C. M.W.P. No 13388/20 M/s Bio Tech System Vs. Rs.6000/- In view of the foregoing discussions, and keeping inview th
Allahabad State of U.P and 4 others. Rs. 900/- e facts of the case at hand, we are not inclined to
(EUCD-I) Rs. 300/- exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
Rs.7200/-
of the Constitution.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Dismissed 19.11.2020
6. C. M.W.P. No. 12480/20 Ashish Electrical Vs. State of Rs.6000/- For order, see our order of date passed in Writ–C No.13388
Allahabad U.P. 2 and others. Rs. 900/- of 2020 (M/S Bio Tech System Vs. State Of U.P. And 4
(EDD) Rs. 300/- Others)
George Town Rs.7200/-
Dismissed 19.11.2020
7. C. M.W.P. No. 12479/20 M/s Jai Bhawani Rs.6000/- For order, see our order of date passed in Writ–C No.13388
Allahabad Rs. 900/- of 2020 (M/S Bio Tech System Vs. State Of U.P. And 4
Construction Company Vs.
(EDD) Rs. 300/- Others).
George Town State of U.P. and 2 others. Rs.7200/-
Dismissed 19.11.2020
 AZAMGARH
8. C. M.W.P. No. 17467/20 Ramesh Chandra Pandey Vs. Rs.6000/- In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of
Azamgarh U.P.P.C.L and 2 others. Rs. 900/- with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh
(EDD-VI) Rs. 300/- representation before respondent No. 2 within a period of
Rs.7200/-
one week ventilating all his grievance, which shall be
considered and decided by respondent No. 2 within two
weeks thereafter in accordance with law. It is made clear
that if the petitioner fails to file the representation within
the stipulated period as indicated above, he shall not be
entitled to get the benefit of this order.
Disposed of 02.11.2020
BALLIA
9. C. M.W.P. No. 14877/20 Shivaji Pandey Vs. State of Rs.6000/- Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
Ballia Rs. 900/- with a direction to the petitioner to approach the
U.P. and 2 others.
(EDD-)Machlisahar Rs. 300/- respondent no. 3 by filing a representation ventilating his
Rs.7200/-
grievance along with a copy of this order within a period of
two weeks from today. In case the petitioner does so, the
respondent no. 3 shall consider the cause of the petitioner
and pass the appropriate reasoned and speaking order
within a period of four weeks thereafter.
Disposed of 21.10.2020
 BASTI
10. C. M.W.P. No. 18215/20 Mustafa Hussain Vs. State of Rs.6000/- It is the case of the petitioner that the Inspecting Team of
Basti U.P. and another. Rs. 900/- the respondent - Corporation raided the premises of the
(EDD-I) Rs. 300/- petitioner on 02.08.2019. The checking report was not
Rs.7200/- served upon him. He further submits that without service
of the copy of provisional assessment and without
affording any notice and opportunity to him, on the basis
of provisional assessment, recovery proceedings have been
initiated.
The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is at liberty to
make an objection to the provisional assessment
alongwith a copy of this order before the respondent no.3
within two weeks from today. The respondent no.3 will
consider the objection filed by the petitioner and shall
pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with
law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. It is made
clear that if the petitioner fails to approach the
respondent no.3 within the period as indicated above, he
shall not be entitled to get the benefit of this order and
the respondent corporation will be at liberty to pass the
final assessment order in accordance with law.
Disposed of 10.11.2020
CHANDAULI
11. C. M.W.P. No. 13725/20 Rajesh Kumar Dubey Vs. Rs.6000/- We are of the view that there is no illegality or perversity
Chandauli Rs. 900/- in the demand raised by the electricity department and as
State of U.P. 3 and others.
(EDD- II) Rs. 300/- such we do not find it a fit case for exercise of
Mugal Saray extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Rs.7200/-
Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit.
 It is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised,
may avail alternative remedy as available to him in law.
Disposed of 11.11.2020

FATEHPUR
12. C. M.W.P. No. 17259/20 Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. Rs.6000/- Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
Fatehpur and 3 others. Rs. 900/- with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no. 4
(EDD- I) Rs. 300/- by filing a representation within a period of three weeks
Rs.7200/-
from today and if the petitioner does so, the said
respondent shall consider the cause of the petitioner and
pass the appropriate order in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks thereafter.
Disposed of 22.10.2020
13. C. M.W.P. No. 17399/19 Banwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. Rs.6000/- He further submits that the petitioner has a remedy of
Fatehpur and 3 others. Rs. 900/- filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity
(EDD- I) Rs. 300/- Supply Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner does
Rs.7200/-
not dispute that an appeal lies against the assessment
order. Under the aforesaid circumstance of the case, it is
directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within
three weeks from today, the same shall be considered on
its merit by the learned Tribunal expeditiously in
accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
Disposed of 02.11.2020
 MAU
14. C. M.W.P. No. 15474/20 Brijesh Kumar Vs. State of Rs.6000/- It is further submitted that against the final assessment
Mau U.P. And Another. Rs. 900/- order dated 4.11.2019, the petitioner has an alternative
(EDD-I) Rs. 300/- remedy of filing an appeal under Section 127 of the
Rs.7200/-
Electricity Act, 2003. In view of the availability of
alternative remedy, we are not inclined to entertain this
writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dismissed 22.10.2020
15. C. M.W.P. No. 17471/20 Priya Singh Vs. State of U.P. Rs.6000/- It is the case of the petitioner that inspection was made at
Mau And 2 Others. Rs. 900/- her premises on 17.1.2020 and thereafter provisional
(EDD-I) Rs. 300/- assessment order was passed on 24.1.2020 (Annexure 2 to
Rs.7200/-
the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that she has filed an objection on 5.2.2020
against the provisional assessment order, which is still
pending for consideration and the respondentCorporation
is taking coercive measures for recovery of the disputed
amount.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner prefers an
appeal within two weeks from today, the same shall be
considered and decided on its merits within a period of
four weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid observations,
this petition is finally disposed of.
Disposed of 02.11.2020
16. C. M.W.P. No. 16768/19 Shamshad Ahmad Vs. Rs.6000/- In view of the said submission of Sri Mahboob Ahmad the
Mau UPPCL and 2 others. Rs. 900/- present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to
(EDD-II) Rs. 300/- the respondent no. 4 to consider the grievance of the
Rs.7200/-
petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with
law within a period of four weeks from the date of
production of a copy of this order.

Disposed of 03.11.2020
SIDDHARTH NAGAR
17. C. M.W.P. No. 16884/20 Amrullah Vs. State of U.P. Rs.6000/- In view of this the present writ petition is disposed of with
Siddharth Nagar and 3 others. Rs. 900/- the direction to the respondent no. 4 the Executive
(EDD-) Rs. 300/- Engineer, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Khand,
Rs.7200/-
Siddharth Nagar Siddharth Nagar to consider and decide the representation
of the petitioner and shall pass appropriate order within a
period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy
of this order.
Disposed of 03.11.2020

Counsel Fee- Rs. 1,02,000.00

Clerkage- Rs. 15,300.00
Certified Copy- Rs. 5,100.00
Grand Total = Rs. 1,22,400.00

(MAHBOOB AHMAD)
Advocate