IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1318 of 2008 (M/S) Paras Kumar Jain, S/O Late Bhagwant Rai Jain, R/O Bhagwant Kuti, Kankhal, District Haridwar. …… Petitioner. Versus Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd., Electricity Distribution Division, Mayapur, District Haridwar, through its Manager and another. … Respondents. Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.. Sri B.D.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents-Power Corporation. Date August 05, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.D.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of finally today itself without inviting counter affidavit from the respondents. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order no. 846 dated 8.7.2008 issued by respondent no.2 annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 3,76,387/- including the amount of fine on the ground that the petitioner had made illegal use of his electricity connection. According to the petitioner, an intimation of ceasing of partnership firm was intimated by the partners by letter dated 20-5- 1992 sent to the respondent no. 2 on 20-5-1992 to that effect and another information was sent to the same effect with a prayer to transfer the electric connection in favour of other partners of the 2 firm in the year 1997. According to the petitioner no opportunity of hearing was given to him prior to passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the Power Corporation has contended that in the impugned order, an opportunity had been given to the petitioner to make a representation if he feels aggrieved by the impugned order. But instead of filing a representation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was a partner of the firm and he had already informed the Corporation that the electric connection should not be treated in his name firstly in the year 1992 and subsequently in the year 1997 vide Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. It is not disputed that in the impugned order it was provided that if the petitioner has any grievance, he would make a representation. Therefore, It would be expedient in the interest of justice that liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation and till the decision on his representation, the respondents be directed not to take coercive measure against the petitioner. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner may make a representation before the second respondent within a period of ten days from today with liberty to raise all or any of the grounds taken in the writ petition. If representation is so moved, the second respondent shall take a decision thereon expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till the decision on the representation, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Costs easy. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4 5