Ajay Kumar Rastogi vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of the writ petition.

As Per Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, it is obvious that petitioner is a shop-keeper and also during course of hearing learned counsel submitted that petitioner has been given electricity connection for domestic use but it appears that the amount in dispute relates to illegal drawing of electricity, therefore F.I.R. was lodged but subsequently, it was quashed.

However, the amount of charges against illegal drawing of electricity to the tune of Rs. 29,990/- is still outstanding to be recovered.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that his appeal being Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition u/s 126/127 of Electricity Act is still pending before the authority since 2008.

On the other hand learned Counsel for U.P. Electricity Board states that a direction may be issued to dispose of the said appeal within a time frame.

Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the authority concerned to decide and dispose of pending appeal of petitioner u/s 126/127 of Electricity Act being Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition within a time frame of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.

Thus, this writ petition stands disposed of finally.