Availability of statutory alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the principles of natural justice.

These writ application are heard together and disposed of by this order as a common question of law arose in these cases.

2. It appears that petitioners are LT consumers and their premises inspected on 16.7.2010 and 17.7.2010, respectively and it was found that loads in the petitioners' factory premises are more than the sanctioned load. It appears that thereafter, notices issued to the petitioners under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Petitioners filed their objections under Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act and thereafter, final assessment orders passed, which have been challenged by the petitioners vide interlocutory applications. Petitioners had also challenged the notices issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. It is submitted by Sri Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners that the notices issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act are vague as they do not contain the provisional assessment orders. Thus, the entire proceedings initiated under Section 126 of the Act is liable to be quashed on that very ground. It is further submitted that even in the final assessment orders, no reason assigned as to why the contentions of the petitioners have been rejected. Thus, on that ground also, the final assessment orders are liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, Sri Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board/Electrical Company(J.U.V.N.L.) submits that the petitioners filed their detailed objections, after receiving the notices. In that objections, they have not stated that the notices are vague, thus, they are unable to file objections against the provisional assessment orders. Sri Sinha, further submits that from perusal of the objections filed by the petitioners, it appears that they were fully acquainted with all the facts and filed representations against the inspection reports and other particulars of the provisional assessment orders, which show that the aforesaid materials were within the knowledge of the petitioners at the time of filing objections. Thus, no prejudice caused to him. It is further submitted that against the final assessment orders, an appeal lie before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. Thus, on the ground of statutory alternative remedy, these writ applications are liable to be dismissed.

5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the records of the case. From perusal of the notices served upon the petitioners, I find that in the said notices it is stated that the premises of the petitioners inspected on 17.7.2010 and 16.7.2010 respectively, and it was found by the inspection committee that they were using load more than the sanctioned load. It further appears that in the said notices, it is mentioned that petitioners put loss to the Electricity Board to the tune of Rs. 9,59,844/- and Rs. 12,74,139/-, respectively. Thus, in the show cause notices, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioners are using the load beyond the sanctioned limit and by doing so, they put loss to the Electricity Board. It further appears from the show cause filed by the petitioners that they filed detailed objections against the provisional assessment orders. It further appears from the final assessment orders that representatives of both the petitioners were heard by the Assessing Authority. It further appears that at no point petitioners made complaint that due to vagueness of notice they are not able to file objection properly. In that view of the matter, I find that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners, because they filed detailed objections and were given full opportunity of being heard.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another Vrs. All India Manufacturers Organisation and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683, in a similar circumstance under land acquisition Act had held that if the objectors know the purpose of the notices and they have filed their objections before t