The court emphasized that while alternative remedies exist, they do not bar the maintainability of a writ petition when fundamental rights are at stake.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as CESC) challenging an order dated 23rd April, 2025 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WPO/122/2025. By the said order the learned Single Judge directed the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein to pay Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of 7 days along with reconnection charges without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. It was also directed that upon such payment CESC will reconnect the electricity connection of the writ petitioner and he shall go on paying the current bills. It was further observed that the said interim order shall remain in effect for a period of two months from date and that the matter will be taken up for hearing after three weeks when CESC shall produce the relevant records.

2. Record reveals that the writ petition was preferred challenging inter alia the final order of assessment dated 5th June, 2023. The said order was preceded by an order of provisional assessment dated 24th May, 2023 passed on the basis of an inspection report. The provisional assessment was quantified to be Rs. 5,15,590/-. In the writ petition it was averred inter alia that though by the order of provisional assessment it was directed that the hearing would be granted to the writ petitioner on 7th June, 2023, the order of final assessment was surprisingly issued two days prior thereto on 5th June, 2023. It was also averred that after issuance of the final order of assessment, the writ petitioner repeatedly approached the authorities as the provisional assessment order was erroneously passed considering the load to be 6 KW which is equal to 27 Amp though in the inspection report it was stated that ‘while taking photographs it drops to 5 Amp’.

3. Mr. Sanyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant strenuously argues that the learned Single Judge did not consider the maintainability of the writ petition prior to issuance of the interim order though such issue of maintainability was specifically urged by the appellant. The writ petition was preferred about one and half years after the final order of assessment without furnishing any explanation as to why the writ petitioner waited for such a long period before approaching the writ Court, moreso when in the midst thereof, the statutory period for preferring an appeal had long expired. The writ petitioner deliberately slept over the issue and in the said conspectus, the learned Single Judge ought not to have exercised discretion in his favour.

4. He further argues that the writ petitioner himself admitted that his authorized representative attended the hearing before the Assessing Officer on 7th June, 2023 and admitted the unauthorized use of electricity at the premises. Inadvertently, the date of the final order of assessment was printed as ‘5.6.2023’ in place of ‘7.6.2023’. However, no contemporaneous representation was submitted by the writ petitioner pointing out such fact though he received the said order on 15th June, 2023. Ignoring the said sequence of facts, the learned Single Judge erroneously passed the impugned order.

5. Drawing our attention to the third proviso of Section 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Act) and Regulation 6.3 of notification no. 55 dated 7th August 2013, Mr. Sanyal submits that it is a statutory mandate that reconnection can only be effected only after the assessed amount is paid. The direction towards reconnection only upon payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- is thus unsustainable