Back
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
PRAGATI INDIASTONE CRUSHER – Appellant
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD. , JABALPUR – Respondent
ORDER : – The petitioner, who is consumer of respondent electricity distribution Company (Discom) entered into an agreement for high tension electricity supply for the purpose of stone crusher. The petitioner approached the Electricity Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum Jabalpur, which is a statutory forum constituted under section 42(5) of the Electricity Act 2003 against the alleged illegal electricity bill of the petitioner’s unit raised by respondent-Discom.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that he has an alternative remedy under sub-section 6 of section 42 of the Electricity Act 2003 to approach the Ombudsman. However, he submits that there is no bar to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Excise, (2015) 8 SCC 519 and also in the case of Management of MS Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, (1990) 2 SCC 48.
3. According to the petitioner, once the high tension connection was disconnected on 23-
The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away by statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if a statutory forum is created for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring such statutory dispensation.
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
