Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1165 (CAL)

Jawahar Lal Kapoor v. CESC Limited

2010-09-09

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2010
Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated September 2, 2010 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw the order dated April 4, 2008 (at p.40) and reconnect his supply of electricity. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no idea why supply of electricity to him was disconnected. His further argument is that the provisions of s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 could not be used for disconnecting the supply, since nothing in the section empowered anyone to disconnect supply of electricity to a consumer. Counsel for CESC has produced the order of final assessment dated April 28, 2008 made by the assessing officer of CESC under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. To this, counsel for the petitioner has said that the petitioner has no idea how and when the order of final assessment was made. The order dated April 4, 2008 was the order of provisional assessment made by the assessing officer of CESC under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is evident from the order of final assessment dated April 28,2008 that the petitioner’s son filed a written objection dated April 17, 2008; that as the petitioner’s authorized representative the petitioner’s son appeared before the assessing officer on April 25, 2008 and made submissions in support of the objections; and that after considering the submissions, the assessing officer made the final order under s.126 determining the petitioner’s liability for unauthorized use of energy at Rs. 2,11,706. On the facts noted hereinbefore, I find no reason why the petitioner should be permitted to approach the High Court under art. 226. The order of provisional assessment questioned in this petition merged into the order of final assessment as back as April 28, 2008 and hence the petitioner is not entitled to question it independently. Against the order of final assessment his remedy was an appeal under s.127. He never cared to take any step in the matter after participating in the final assessment proceedings through his authorized representative on April 25, 2008. The argument that nothing in s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowered anyone to disconnect supply of electricity to the petitioner is misconceived. He never cared to take any step in the matter after participating in the final assessment proceedings through his authorized representative on April 25, 2008. The argument that nothing in s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowered anyone to disconnect supply of electricity to the petitioner is misconceived. The provisions of reg.4.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007 clearly empowered and authorized the licensee and its officials to disconnect the petitioner’s supply on the allegation of theft or unauthorized use of energy. Now only if the petitioner pays the whole of the assessed amount, he will be entitled to reconnection of his supply under reg. 6.4 of the Regulations. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs.