NAVNEET KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.

(2.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus for the restoration of the electricity connection and supply to his house and has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.2.2020 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner has been directed to make necessary deposit of Rs.37,788/-, in respect of which he had already issued a cheque which got dishonoured.

(3.) The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a serious error in the assessment of the electricity charge and, therefore, the bill of electricity is required to be corrected. He further submits that there cannot be a case of final assessment in a theft case as there is no First Information Report registered against the petitioner till date.