Achal Kumar Singh v. The Bihar State Electricity Board And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6291 of 2014 ====================================================== Achal Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Gandhinagar, Katihar, P.S. and Distt. - Katihar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Chairman

2. The Chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna

3. The Electrical Executive Engineer of the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., Katihar Division, Katihar

4. The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Revenue) of Electric Supply Division, Katihar .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Mandal, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-04-2016 Heard Sri Arun Kumar Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent/North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of disconnection notice (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit outstanding bill. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a bill of Rs. 17,518.65 was issued. However, immediately after noticing the fact that the petitioner has filed a writ petition, the Respondents themselves renewed the bill and the bill amount has

Patna High Court CWJC No.6291 of 2014 (4) dt.13-04-2016 2/2 been reduced/ rectified from Rs.17,517.65 to Rs.11,151. 50. However, in the writ petition, the petitioner has made specific statement that regarding the dispute he had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Katihar vide Case no.100/2011 and in paragraph-9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that same was pending on the date of filing of the writ petition.

The Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has already approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum, which is competent authority for redressal of such type of dispute, the writ petition may not be entertained.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U