Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2439
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.
Santosh Kumar Trivedi - Appellant
Versus
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Managing Director & 2 Ors. - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. - 9465 of 2014
Decided On : 22-09-2014
For the Petitioner: Girdhari Lal Yadav.
For the Respondent: Prashant Arora.
The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code 2005, which allowed for a remedy before the competent authority for disputes related to electricity bills.
Headnote:
Electricity Supply Code 2005 - Dispute over electricity bills - The court directed the Executive Engineer to take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner within a month and ordered no coercive steps for recovery of dues until the representation is disposed of. The Executive Engineer was also directed to consider the petitioner's request for permanent disconnection of electricity and One Time Settlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner raised a dispute regarding electricity bills and sought relief under the Electricity Supply Code 2005. The petitioner had already submitted a representation to the Executive Engineer.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Executive Engineer to make a decision on the petitioner's representation within a month and ordered no coercive steps for recovery of dues until the representation is disposed of. The Executive Engineer was also directed to consider the petitioner's request for permanent disconnection of electricity and One Time Settlement.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code 2005, which provided a remedy before the competent authority, in this case, the Executive Engineer, for disputes related to electricity bills.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.
The petitioner has sought to raise a dispute in respect of the bills for the payment of electricity. Under Para 6.5 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005, a remedy is available before the competent authority which, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, is the Executive Engineer. The petitioner has already submitted a representation to the Executive Engineer. Hence, we direct the Executive Engineer, namely, the second respondent to take a decision in accordance with law on the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
2. We also direct that until 31 October 2014 or until the disposal of the representation, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken for the recovery of the dues.
3. Since the petitioner has also prayed that the electricity connection may be permanently disconnected and that there was no electric supply to the premises of the petitioner at the relevant time, the Executive Engineer, while disposing of the representation, may also take into account these aspects.
4. Moreover, it has also been stated that the petitioner has applied for One Time Settlement. We clarify that we have left it open to the Executive Engineer, i.e. the second respondent to also consider this aspect while disposing of the representation.
5. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
