Judgment : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The order impugned is dated 2-5-2012 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, by the said order, the application filed by the Respondent herein under Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code questioning the maintainability of the suit in view of the remedy provided under the Electricity Act, 2003, came to be allowed and the Learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune has come to the conclusion that the said Court would have no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the suit. 3. The principal relief sought in the suit is to refer the dispute arising out of the bill dated 1-11-2011 for Rs.7,47,970/-to the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC), constituted by the Respondent licensee. 4. During the Course of the hearing of the above Writ Petition, the Learned Counsel Mr. Tanna appearing for the Petitioner fairly accepts the position that in fact the remedy for the Petitioner would be to approach the IGRC, looking to the nature of the dispute which is involved, however, the difficulty has arisen on account of the fact that the Respondent herein has disputed the amount of Rs.1,08,029/-which has been deposited by the Petitioner with them as a pre deposit which is contemplated under Section 56(1)(a) or (b) of the said act. It is in the said eventuality that according to Mr. Tanna that the Petitioner is required to approach this Court. The learned Counsel Mr. Tanna would contend that in terms of Section 56, the lesser of the two amounts between clauses (a) and (b) has to be deposited by the consumer and it is on the said basis that the Petitioner has calculated the amount and has arrived at the figure of Rs.1,08,029/-in terms of Section 56(1)(b) of the said Act, as the said amount is the lesser of the two amounts. 5. Per contra it is submitted by Mr. Khare the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent that since the demand as per the demand notice dated 1-11-2011, is Rs.7,47,970/-, the Petitioner would have to deposit the said amount so as to facilitate the adjudication by IGRC. In view of the said dispute, it is necessary to advert to Section 56 of the said Act which for ready reference is reproduced herein under: “56. In view of the said dispute, it is necessary to advert to Section 56 of the said Act which for ready reference is reproduced herein under: “56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment:- (1) where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, put no longer; Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits under protect – (a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him or (b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of the average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee. A reading of the said provision therefore makes it clear that between the amounts mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) the consumer would have to deposit the lesser of the two amounts. In the instant case, the bill being of Rs.7,47,970/-, it is referable to clause (a). However, in so far as the amount calculated as per clause (b) is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had produced the bills for the preceding 6 months prior to the issuance of the said demand notice. The said bills ex-facie disclose that the average of the said bills comes to Rs.1,10,000/-. The Petitioner has therefore deposited the said amount of Rs.1,08,029/-with the Respondent. The said bills ex-facie disclose that the average of the said bills comes to Rs.1,10,000/-. The Petitioner has therefore deposited the said amount of Rs.1,08,029/-with the Respondent. Hence in terms of the scheme as posited under Section 56 of the said Act, the Petitioner would be liable to pay the average for the six month period which would obviously be lesser than the amount of Rs.7,47,970/-in terms of clause (a). In my view, therefore the Respondent is not entitled to contend that the Petitioner is liable to deposit the said amount of Rs.7,47,970/-as pre deposit for facilitating the Petitioner to approach the IGRC. Since the amount of Rs.1,08,029/-has already been deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondent in the Trial court, in my view, it would be just and proper to direct the Petitioner to deposit a further amount so as to make a round figure of Rs.1,25,000/-pending the proceedings before the IGRC. The said balance amount to be deposited within a period of one week from date. The Respondent would be entitled to withdraw the said amount which would be subject to the decision that would be rendered by the IGRC. On the Petitioner depositing the said amount, the Petitioner would be entitled to file his grievance before the IGRC within two weeks of the said deposit. The IGRC after the said grievance is filed by the Petitioner may proceed thereafter in accordance with law. In the meantime, till the period for filing the grievance in terms of this order is over, the Respondent may not disconnect the electric supply to the Petitioner. The Petitioner would be liable to pay the necessary charges for the same. The Petition is accordingly allowed with Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with parties to bear their respective costs.