Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 188 (UTT)

Anjum Faiza v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-03-12

N.S.DHANIK, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 1. Heard Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and, with their consent, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The appellant-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, seeking a Writ of certiorari to quash the electricity disconnection order dated 06.02.2019; a Writ of Mandamus directing the Power Corporation to reconnect the electricity supply to the petitioner’s house; a Writ of certiorari to quash the illegal demand notices dated 24.01.2018 & 15.05.2018; a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent nos. 1, 2 & 6 to constitute a Special Investigation Team to inquire into the illegal electricity disconnection, and arbitrary criminal conspiracy, done by respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 to grab the petitioner’s property; and a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent-Power Corporation to install a new meter; lawfully charge the petitioner for her power consumption; and not to insist on payment of the illegal alleged pending dues. 3. Two demand notices were issued to the petitioner dated 24.01.2018 & 15.05.2018. On the ground that she had failed to make payment, the electricity connection was disconnected by order dated 06.02.2019 questioning which the petitioner filed WPMS No. 541 of 2019. In the order under appeal dated 05.03.2019, the learned Single Judge took note of Sections 126 (3) & (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and held that, having received the provisional assessment, it was open to the consumer either to accept the same or to deposit the assessed amount within seven days of service upon him, or to file his reply or objection to the provisional assessment; if the objection was filed, then the Assessing Officer, after giving an opportunity of being heard, should pass final orders; and, if the consumer was still aggrieved by the final assessment order, he could prefer an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned Single Judge further observed that, since a personal hearing was the sine qua non for passing the final assessment order, the impugned demand notices dated 24.01.2018 and 15.05.2018 were liable to be, and were accordingly, quashed. The petitioner was permitted to appear either in person or through her representative before the Assessing Officer on 11.03.2019, and he was directed to pass a final assessment order. The petitioner was permitted to appear either in person or through her representative before the Assessing Officer on 11.03.2019, and he was directed to pass a final assessment order. 4. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that, while both the demand notices were quashed on the ground that they were passed without giving the appellant-writ petitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing, the subsequent electricity disconnection order dated 06.02.2019 had not been interfered with; the case of the respondent was that the appellant-writ petitioner had taken advantage of a faulty meter; it is the appellant-writ petitioner’s case that the faulty meter was installed, at the behest of her husband, only to have her evicted from her house; while the appellant-writ petitioner was ready and willing to pay the electricity dues, on the faulty meter being replaced by a proper meter, the respondents have, without replacing the faulty meter, disconnected power supply on the ground that the electricity dues, from the appellant-writ petitioner, from November, 2016 till January, 2019 was Rs.61,000/-; even after a final assessment order is passed, it is open to the consumer to prefer an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003; and, in terms of sub-Section (2) thereof, deposit of 50% of the arrears of the assessed amount is a precondition for an appeal to be entertained. In the present case, the final assessment proceedings are still pending 5. As a consequence of the order under appeal, the interest of the revenue would be adequately safeguarded if the appellant-writ petitioner is directed to pay Rs.31,000/- to the 2nd respondent towards part-payment of the arrears of electricity dues. Within three days of receipt of this amount of Rs.31,000/-, the 2nd respondent shall replace the faulty meter, and restore the electricity connection. The petitioner shall, thereafter, continue to pay electricity charges each month as and when it becomes due. The appellant-writ petitioner’s liability, if any, for payment of the balance amount, and the 2nd respondent’s right to recover the said amount from the appellant-writ petitioner, shall be subject to the final assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer. 6. On the next date fixed for personal hearing, by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner shall appear either in person, or through her representative, before him. 6. On the next date fixed for personal hearing, by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner shall appear either in person, or through her representative, before him. In case the appellant-writ petitioner fails to appear on the date fixed by the Assessing Officer, it is open to him to proceed and pass final assessment orders without giving any further opportunity to the appellant-writ petitioner. 7. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly. No costs.