GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 12 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 12:
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned standing counsel appearing for the APDCL
2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the inspection and seizure report, both dated April 11, 2019, whereby the electricity meter and the CT PT set connected to the petitioner's premises were seized, and the power supply was disconnected. The further challenge is made to the assessment bill dated 12.04.2019 and the FIR dated 12.04.2019, which alleges the breakage and tampering of a few seals, thereby implicating the petitioner in the theft of electricity.
3. The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction, challenging the initiation of proceedings and the provisional assessment primarily on the grounds that the inspection report does not disclose any prima facie material of theft of electricity; therefore, the inspection report is liable to be interfered with. The second contention is that in case of theft, the proceedings prescribed under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2003), are required to be followed, and initiation of proceedings under section 126 is wholly without jurisdiction.
4. The respondent Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as APDCL) has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present writ petition for having an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 127 of the Act, 2003. Such an objection is raised primarily in reference to a decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench in Shiv Alloys Steel Vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd and Ors reported in (2021) 4 GLR 558, and the decision of the Division Bench affirming such determination in Writ Appeal No.286/2021 (Shiv Alloys Steel Vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd and Ors).
5. Before delving into the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, let this court first record, in brief, the essential facts of the case as pleaded.
6. On 11.04.2019, APDCL officials inspected the meter in the industrial premises of the petitioner. Due to allegations that the meter and CT PT set had been tampered with, the meter and CT PT were seized, and the power supply to the premises was disconnected. The petitioner immediately filed the writ petition; an interim order was passed on 12.04.2019 directing the APDCL to restore the electricity supply. On the same date, i.e., 12.04.2019, a provisional assessment bill was served upon the petitioner. The APDCL authority filed an interlocutory application in the writ petition registered as I.A(C) No. 1445/2019 for vacation, alteration, or modification of the order dated 12.04.2019; however, this court dismissed the Interlocutory application for the reason that the matter requires adjudication at the stage of final hearing. Against such an order, the APDCL preferred a Writ Appeal registered as WA No.167/2019; however, the Writ Appellate court, under its judgment and order dated 07.08.2019, refused to interfere with the interim order dated 12.04.2019 and requested the Single Bench to dispose of the writ petition on merit. In the meantime, the respondent APDCL has filed an affidavit, and the matter is being heard accordingly by this court.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62Wl5B9S62creJHrbT0K7WxQGBiI4b7YfyvjzmR6eoXAA6&caseno=WP(C)/2608/2019&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010084932019&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
