Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1198 (ALL)

Vijendra Pal Singh v. State of U. P.

2004-06-29

S.P.MEHROTRA

body2004
JUDGMENT S. P. Mehrotra, J.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to send the electricity bill to the petitioner as per the meter reading and permit the petitioner to deposit the same in accordance with law. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is Pharmacist in the Hospital ; and that the petitioner had applied for Electricity Connection in the year 1982 for domestic purpose, and that the petitioner was having Electricity Connection No. 019830, Book No. 0221 ; and that the petitioner was regularly paying the bill ; and that the bill for the period upto 18.8.2002, as per the meter reading was Rs. 189, and the petitioner made payment of Rs. 189 in the Month of October, 2002, and that the bill for the period upto 17th October, 2002 was Rs. 222, and the petitioner also deposited the same, and that the respondents sent arbitrary bill for the period upto April, 2003 for Rs. 52,395 and that the meter reading was shown as 24415 and that as the bills were not as per the meter reading and were arbitrary bills, the petitioner on 13.8.2003 and 21.8.2003 sent representations to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division I, Etah. The said representations dated 13.8.2003 and 21.8.2003 have been filed as Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition, respectively. 3. It is further stated in the writ petition that thereafter, the petitioner received bill for the period upto 17.4.2004 for Rs. 79,343, and the meter reading was shown as 29592. Copy of the said bill has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 4. It is further stated that the present meter reading is 9287, but the respondents, without taking any meter reading, are sending arbitrary bills. It is further stated that after receiving the said bill for the period upto 17th April, 2004, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.4.2004 to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division 1, Etah. Copy of the said representation dated 20.4.2004 has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 5. It is, inter alia, further stated that when nothing was done in the matter, the petitioner again on 4.6.2004 sent another representation to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division 1, Etah. Copy of the said representation dated 20.4.2004 has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 5. It is, inter alia, further stated that when nothing was done in the matter, the petitioner again on 4.6.2004 sent another representation to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division 1, Etah. Copy of the said representation dated 4.6.2004 has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 6. I have heard Sri A. Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amodh Pandey, holding brief for Sri V. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 7. It is submitted by Sri A. Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the bills being sent to the petitioner are wholly arbitrary. It is submitted that in fact, the present meter reading is as mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition. However, the submission proceeds, the bills are being sent to the petitioner showing totally incorrect meter readings. 8. In reply, Sri Amodh Pandey, holding brief for Sri V. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that as the petitioner is disputing the correctness of the bills, he has got an alternative remedy under the U. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002. He refers to paragraph No. 6.16 of the said Code in this regard. 9. It is submitted by Sri Pandey that in view of the provisions of paragraph 6.16, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. Paragraph 6.16 of the U. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002 provides as follows : “If the consumer disputes the accuracy of any bill, he may either make the payment under protest and file a complaint with the A.E. (R) or E.E. (R), as the case may be, or file a complaint before the due date for payment. The complaint shall be decided within 7 days and consumer shall be informed. (a) If the complaint is found to be correct by A.E. (R)/E.E.(R) a revised bill shall be issued within 7 days of the complaint and the consumer shall be given 7 days to make the payment. The complaint shall be decided within 7 days and consumer shall be informed. (a) If the complaint is found to be correct by A.E. (R)/E.E.(R) a revised bill shall be issued within 7 days of the complaint and the consumer shall be given 7 days to make the payment. The consumer shall not be charged any late payment surcharge (and he shall be eligible for timely payment rebate, if any applicable) if the payment is made by the revised date. If payment has already been made, excess amount shall be adjusted in subsequent bills. (b) If the complaint was found to be incorrect the consumer shall be notified and decreed to make the payment if not already paid, as per the original bill immediately and the consumer shall be liable to pay the late payment surcharge.” 12. A perusal of the above-quoted paragraph 6.16 of the U. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002 shows that if the consumer disputes the accuracy of the bill, he may either make the payment under protest and file a complaint before the Assistant Engineer (Revenue) or Executive Engineer (Revenue), as the case may be, or may file a complaint prior to the due date for payment. 13. It is, thus, evident that it is open to the consumer to file complaint before the authorities mentioned in paragraph 6.16 of the U. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002, if the consumer want to dispute the accuracy of the bill. 14. In the present case, due date for payment, as mentioned in the said bill for the period upto 17.4.2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) was 24.6.2004. 15. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner has already made representations dated 20.4.2004 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and 4.6.2004 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) against the said bill for the period upto 17.4.2004. 16. The said representations have evidently, been made by the petitioner much prior to the due date for payment, as contemplated in the abovementioned paragraph 6.16 of the U. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002. 17. 16. The said representations have evidently, been made by the petitioner much prior to the due date for payment, as contemplated in the abovementioned paragraph 6.16 of the U. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002. 17. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division 1, Etah to decide the representations/complaints made by the petitioner (copies whereof have been filed as Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition) in accordance with paragraph 6.16 of the U. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002. 18. It is accordingly, directed that the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division 1, Etah (respondent No. 3) will decide the representations/complaints of the petitioner dated 20.4.2004 and 4.6.2004 against the said bill for the period upto 17th April, 2004 within a period of 7 days from the date a certified copy of this order, along with copies of the said representations/complaints, is filed before the said Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division 1, Etah (respondent No. 3). The said Executive Engineer will pass a speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and communicate the said order to the petitioner. 19. In case, a certified copy of the present order is filed before the said Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division 1, Etah (respondent No. 3) within a period of 15 days from today and the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards electricity dues within the same period of 15 days, disconnection of the electricity connection pursuant to the said bill for the period upto 17th April, 2004 will remain stayed till the disposal of the representations/complaints by the said Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division 1, Etah (respondent No. 3). 20. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.