Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1008 (CAL)

Chinmoy Panja v. The State of West Bengal

2011-08-01

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2011
Judgment : The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition is questioning an order of final assessment dated July 12, 2011 (at p.121) passed under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the assessing officer of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a licensee under the Act. Mr Roy appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the reasons why the petitioner is not required to go to the appellate authority under s.127 of the Act have been stated in para.27 of the petition. Paragraph 27 at p.21 of the petition is quoted below: “27. That although there is provision of statutory appeal but for that petitioner has to deposit 1/3rd of the amount of the final assessment bill to prefer appeal against the impugned Final Assessment Bill and as the respondent no. 5 in utter violation of the statutory provision raised the bill as such the petitioner move this writ petition for redressal of his grievance and mere provisions of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to move writ petition. Furthermore, the petitioner challenging the ultra virus of the Act as such there is no other alternative and speedy legal remedy and the relief as prayed herein, if granted, will provide complete relief to the petitioner.” The requirement of deposit for maintaining an appeal under s.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is a statutory requirement; and I do not find any reason to say that since for maintaining the appeal the petitioner is required to deposit a part of the finally assessed amount, he is at liberty to bypass the appellate authority. The requirement does not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to bypass the statutory appellate authority and approach the Writ Court questioning the order of final assessment. Mr Roy has submitted that since the petitioner has questioned the validity of ss.126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, he is entitled to question the order of final assessment before the High Court under art.226. He has said that since the assessing officer of the licensee has been empowered to determine the liability, the provisions of ss.126 and 135 must be held to be violative of art.14 of the Constitution. I do not find any merit in the argument. He has said that since the assessing officer of the licensee has been empowered to determine the liability, the provisions of ss.126 and 135 must be held to be violative of art.14 of the Constitution. I do not find any merit in the argument. Simply because the proceedings under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are to be initiated and decided by an assessing officer of the licensee, it cannot be said that the prosecutor himself is the judge. A complaint under s.135 is to be decided by the competent Criminal Court. In my opinion, validity of ss.126 and 135 has been casually questioned with a view to bypassing the appellate authority under s.127. For these reasons, I dismiss the petition making it clear that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from lodging an appeal against the order of final assessment according to law. No costs.