JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Six petitioners have joined together in filing the present writ petition. Their principal grievance, as projected, is that though they have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the appeal has not been heard. The petitioners also claimed to have deposited an amount of Rs. 10,86,490/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety) along with the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Before going to the dispute which has arisen for adjudication, the background facts of the case may be noted down in the following manner.

3. The petitioners have formed a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Star Enterprise and had started a business. In course of their business, they had taken an electricity connection from the APDCL authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that on 22.12.2021, some officials of the APDCL had visited the premises of the petitioners and found some anomalies and also some tempering in the electricity connection. It was detected that the petitioners were consuming around 150 KWs of electricity whereas the local villagers consumed 100 KWs of electricity from the same transformer. Accordingly the APDCL authorities came to a finding of malpractice involving test of electricity for which Rs. 84,49,581/- (Rupees Eighty Four Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty One) was imposed.

4. The petitioners claimed that it was wholly impossible for them to consume that much of electricity and therefore they had filed a petition before the Empowered Committee for reassessment. In the said re-assessment, the amount was re-assessed to Rs. 21,70,980/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Seventy Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty). The petitioners claimed that even those amounts are on the higher side. Accordingly, they had preferred an appeal and also deposited an amount of Rs. 10,86,490/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety). However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the appellate authority is not looking into the matter for which grave prejudice have been caused to the petitioners. Hence this writ petition.

5. I have heard Shri M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners whereas the respondents-APDCL are represented by Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel and Shri R. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam. The materials placed before this Court have also been careful examined.

6. Shri Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the APDCL is unreasonable and they have acted on presumption that the petitioners are indulging in malpractice. He submits that in absence of any credible materials to come to a conclusion of malpractice, the penalty could not have been imposed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner furthers submits that though the penalty is of Rs. 84,49,581/- in the one time settlement, the same was revised to Rs. 21,70,980/-. He submits that if the discrepancy can be of such magnitude, there is absolutely no basis to sustain the impugned demand.

8. Shri Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the requirement of pre-deposit can be altered by this Court as the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wide enough. The said submission has been made as with regard to the specific query of this Court, a certain deposit was consented to be made.

9. The petitioners claimed that their industry is closed since 22.12.2021. In this regard, the petitioners further claimed to have submitted a number of representations.

10. In support of his submission, Shri Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the following case laws:

(i) State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568

(ii) U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479

(iii) S.K. Shukla vs. State of U.P. (2006) 1 SCC 314

(iv) Himanshu Singh Sabharwal vs. State of M.P. AIR 2008 SC 1943

(v) Dynamic Orthop