Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
Mahesh Chander Sharma and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory of J&K and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 970 of 2020, C.M. Nos. 2398, 2399 of 2020
Decided On : 16-06-2021
Electricity - Commercial connection of load of 5KV-90KV (commercial) - Regular payment of electricity without any default in payment - Electricity bill highly excessive and inflated - Rectification of the bill - Petitioners were threatened of disconnection of the electricity supply if they failed to deposit the bill amount - Principles of natural justice - Alternate remedy - Rule of exhaustion - rule of exhaustion of statutory remedy is, however, a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and not a rule of law nor does it bar jurisdiction of the High Court in granting relief in an appropriate case and in exceptional circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
In the absence of report of Inspection Agency made available to the petitioners and in the absence of making the petitioners known of the formula applied for working out the impugned bill, there was no occasion or opportunity for the petitioners to explain their position or contradict the findings of the Inspection Agency and the respondents. Court therefore, find the impugned bill in flagrant violation of principle of audi alteram partem - It is abundantly clear that the impugned bill has resulted in serious breach of audi alteram partem rule in its entirety - Petitioners have been condemned unheard and the impugned order has visited them with serious civil consequences - petitioners have been held liable to a huge amount running into lakhs and they are not even aware of the basis therefor. Plea of the respondents that there is an alternative remedy available under the Act would pale in insignificance. It is now well settled that if an order is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, the same is amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, availability of equally efficacious statutory remedy notwithstanding - instant case by not complying with the audi alterlam partem rule, the respondents have caused serious prejudice to the petitioners and have acted in a manner, which is unfair and arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1 is a consumer of electric energy supplied by the respondents and is identified by Consumer ID No. 0101020005173 and Installation No. GHB/1974. He claims to have executed a lease deed in favour of petitioner No. 2 qua the premises situated in Khasra No. 360/361 Opposite Bakshi Nagar, Pulli Akhnoor Road, Jammu, where the subject electric connection has been sanctioned by the respondents for a load of 5KV-90KV (commercial). As is apparent from the documents on record, it is a three phase and four wire connection sanctioned by the respondents in favour of the petitioners for the aforementioned commercial load.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved and have assailed the monthly bill of supply of electricity raised by the respondents for the month of January, 2020.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that right from the year 2016, when the sanction was accorded for revision of load of 05 KV to 90KV, the petitioner No. 1 has been regularly paying the electricity bills as raised by the respondents every month and has not committed a single default in clearing the electricity bills qua the connection in question. However, the petitioner No. 1 was astonished to see the bill for the month of January, 2020, with an opening balance of Rs. 17,00,556.00 in addition to the monthly bill of Rs. 74,249.00. The petitioners claim that on receipt of this highly excessive and inflated bill, the petitioners represented to the respondents for rectification of the bill but no action in this regard was taken. The petitioners were even threatened of disconnection of the electricity supply if they failed to deposit the bill amount.
4. The petitioners have assailed this impugned bill issued by the respondents for the month of January, 2020, on the ground that there has never been any default in payment of the electricity bills which the petitioners have been depositing regularly every month and, therefore, the demand for the arrears amounting to more than Rs. 17.00 lakhs included in the monthly bill of January, 2020, is totally arbitrary, illegal and uncalled for.
5. The impugned bill has also been assailed on the ground that the respondents, before working out the excess charges of electricity supply and making a demand thereof never put the petitioners on notice and, thus, violated the principles of natural justice. It is argued that the petitioners were never made aware as to the basis of such exorbitant and inflated bill indicating some past arrears running into lakhs.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.P. Sharma, placed strong reliance on Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and submitted that the procedure laid down in Section 126 with regard to assessment of electricity charges payable by the petitioners has not been adhered to at all and, therefore, the impugned bill, in so far it pertains to the arrears on account of electricity charges, is not sustainable in law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents took this Court to the objections filed to the maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 5. He referred to Section 24 to 26 of the Electricity Act and, in particular, placed reliance on Rule 16 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 to put across his argument that in the face of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy being available to the petitioners, the resort to extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court was not permissible.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents would further point out that the case of the petitioners is not one relatable to assessment made under Section 126 of the Act but is only by way of correction of an error committed by the respondents while working out the electricity charges for the supply made to the petitioners.
9. The stand of the respondents is reflected in Para 4 of the objections, which, for facility of reference, is reproduced here-under:
Electricity - Quash of Excessive electricity bill - In absence of making the petitioners known of the formula applied for working out the impugned bill, there was no occasion or opportunity for the p....
The court reaffirmed that principles of natural justice require prior notice before taking actions that adversely affect a party's rights.
The validity of electricity supply regulations was upheld; the court emphasized the necessity for natural justice, quashing vague notices and orders lacking due process.
The appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot enhance an assessment bill without a cross-appeal and must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing n....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in billing disputes, affirming that natural justice principles apply even in electronic billing contexts.
Supplementary bills can be raised for mistakes, but disconnection for non-payment after two years is prohibited under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Regulatory determinations resulting in adverse financial liability for a specific entity without affording that entity an opportunity to be heard violate the principles of natural justice, rendering ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Appellate Authority erred in reducing the periods of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity, as defined by the provisions of Sec.1....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
