JUDGMENT :

The challenge in this writ petition pertains to an order dated 08.04.2017 by which the prayer of the petitioner to shift the franchise of the petitioner from IBDF to CBDF Scheme has been rejected. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the imposition of a demand of Rs.16,11,674/-as dues to be paid to the ADPCL.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination in this Case, it would be convenient to state the facts of the case in brief. In fact, there is a chequered history including earlier rounds of litigation connected to the present dispute.

3. The projected case of the petitioner, as would appear from the pleadings in the writ petition is that he is an Input Based Distribution Franchise (IBDF) of the APDCL in terms of an agreement which empowers him to draw bills on the consumers and also to collect the dues. The petitioner alleges that some false allegations were made against him in respect of his functioning as a franchise by one Samiti based upon which, on 05.05.2015, the petitioner was restrained from making disconnection of the lines of the defaulting consumers. It may be mentioned that as per the petitioner there were default in payment of bills for which the lines were to be disconnected. The petitioner further alleges that taking advantage of the order dated 05.05.2015, the consumers even stopped payment of electricity bill. At the same time, the Samiti along with 19 others had filed a Civil Suit being TS No. 176/2015 in the Court of the Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj in which an ad interim order of temporary injunction was passed by which both the petitioner as well as the APDCL were restrained from resorting to any coercive measures. This led to a situation where there could not be any revenue collection.

4. In the meantime, the APDCL had taken a conscious decision to shift the franchise system from IBDF to CBDF Scheme for which, the existing agreements had to be terminated vide an order dated 02.01.2016. This compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing two numbers of writ petitions as he was covering 12 numbers of DTRs in two groups, which were registered as WP(C)/838/2016 (concerning 2 DTRs) and WP(C)/5875/2016 (concerning 10 DTRs). However, the second writ petition came to be disposed of earlier vide an order dated 05.10.2016 whereby the petitioner was provided an opportunity to raise the dispute before the DGM who would pass appropriate orders within a specified period and till such disposal, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in his business and further that no recovery be effected in the said period.

5. In terms of the aforesaid order dated 05.10.2016, the petitioner had submitted a detail representation. However, the same was rejected vide an order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Badarpur Electrical Circle. It was held that the shifting/ switch over to the credit system was valid and within seven days, the arrears should be paid. However, the authorities vide a subsequent communication dated 04.02.2017 while reiterating the demand for the outstanding had observed that for six months the switching over may be deferred.

6. So far as the first writ petition was concerned, namely, WP(C)/838/2016 wherein the termination order dated 02.01.2016 was challenged in respect of the remaining DTRs, this Court vide order dated 15.05.2017 had passed a similar direction giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation seeking appropriate order regarding switch over which would be disposed of by the appropriate authority. The consideration would also include the issue of arrear dues.

7. In compliance with the aforesaid direction of the High Court, the petitioner had submitted a representation which was disposed of vide an order dated 04.08.2017 issued by the General Manager, APDCL. By the said order, it has been held that the prayer for exempting from switching over would not be favourably considered as the petitioner had totally failed to fulfil the basic