RAOOF Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kamal Kesarwani, holding brief of Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondents no. 2.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to realise the amount of Rs.4,99,815/- in pursuance of the impugned demand/recovery notice dated 04.07.2014 issued by the respondent no.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that objection dated 28.07.2014 filed by the petitioner to the provisional assessment is still pending before the respondent no. 2 for consideration and without making final assessment, directly demand/recovery notice dated 04.07.2014 for a sum of Rs.4,99,815/- has been issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the respondent Power Corporation while issuing the provisional assessment notice was required to fix a date in the notice itself for hearing so that the consumer could appear before the authority concerned on the date so specified.