SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Megh) 42

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. Thangkhiew, J.
Shree Sai Prakash Alloys Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. - Respondent
WP(C). No. 258 of 2022
Decided On : 25-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. N.Das, Mr. M.L.Nongpiur, Advocates, for the Petitioner; Mr. S.Sahay, Adv, Ms. R.Colney, GA, for the Respondent

IMPORTANT POINT
The pendency of proceedings before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum can influence the court's decision regarding the demand for settlement of outstanding dues and the issuance of disconnection notice.

Headnote:

Electricity Disconnection - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum - The court considered the dispute between the petitioner company and the respondent corporation regarding outstanding dues and the demand for settlement. The court analyzed the provisions of the Meghalaya Electricity Supply Code, 2018, and the proceedings before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The court directed the respondent corporation not to give effect to the impugned letter pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, giving ten days' time for the conclusion of the same.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner company challenged the demand for settlement of outstanding dues by the respondent corporation, citing a pending case before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the previous orders and observed that the matter should not be kept pending before the court. However, it directed the respondent corporation not to give effect to the impugned letter pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

Issues: Dispute over outstanding dues, pending case before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, and the authority of the respondent corporation to issue disconnection notice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the pendency of the case before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and directed the respondent corporation not to give effect to the impugned letter pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the Forum.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondent corporation not to give effect to the impugned letter pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, giving ten days' time for the conclusion of the same.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner company is aggrieved with the impugned letter dated 12-07-2022, whereby the respondent corporation has made a demand for settlement of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 51,00,10,940.45 (Rupees fifty-one crores, ten thousand, nine hundred and forty) only, to be made within 15 days from the date of issuance of the impugned letter.

2. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the impugned letter had been issued in complete disregard to the fact that a case being No.1 of 2022 is pending before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) wherein a committee has been constituted to resolve the issues between the parties.

3. The respondent corporation, has resisted the writ petition by countering that the decision to issue disconnection notice and demand clearance of the entire outstanding amount is fully justified under the provisions of the Meghalaya Electricity Supply Code, 2018, whereunder it is obligatory for the party to make the entire deposit before disputing the dues. It is also contended by the respondent corporation, that the constitution of a committee to look into the grievance of the petitioner has no bearing on the right of the respondent corporation to disconnect the electricity of the petitioner and further, that the petitioner is before this Court on a third successive non-maintainable petition on the same/similar cause of action.

4. In the course of hearing the matter, and on the query of the Court as to the status of the proceedings before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, the minutes of the last meeting dated 18-07-2022, have been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the said minutes reflects that the same has not progressed due to the fact that the writ petitioner against the said notice dated 12-07-2022, has approached this Court. For the sake of convenience, the minutes of the meeting are reproduced herein below:

'Minutes of the Meeting

The matter is posted today the 18-07-2022 for submission of proposal to workout a workable plan to settle the matter arising between MePDCL and Shri Sai Prakash Alloys.

However, no proposal whatsoever, has been submitted today on the ground that pending settlement/adjudication of the matter before the Hon'ble forum, the MePDCL has issued a demand-cum-disconnection notice against the total outstanding Electricity Bills amount and calling upon the applicant to clear the outstanding dues within 15 days from the date of issue of the said notice.

In this regard, the representative of Shri Sai Prakash Alloys Pvt. has prayed for relief/injunction by staying the said notice dated 12-7-2022 during the pendency of the case No. 1 of 2022 before the forum.

The representative of MePDCL has informed that since there is no stay order or injunction whatsoever, hence the Corporation is at liberty to initiate disconnection. Further, it has also been informed that Shri Sai Prakash Alloy Pvt. Ltd., has already approached the Hon'ble High Court in this connection and the matter is likely to be taken up on 19-7-2022.

In view of the above, on perusal of the records placed before the Subcommittee of the CGRF, it is to be noted that the Subcommittee is not the authority to deal with the issue of disconnection.'

5. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, though a new situation has arisen, this Court cannot deviate from the orders passed in the earlier writ petitions between the same parties wherein, in WP(C). No. 152 of 2022 particularly, this Court had observed by order dated 10-06-2022, at para 9 and 10 as follows:

'9. Having heard the parties and considered the matter in its totality, it is necessary to note herein that this writ petition was entertained by this Court only on the consideration that public revenue was involved though the matter was purely a commercial transaction between two parties. The proceedings that have since taken place in the course of two writ applications and the failure of the parties to arrive at any und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top