Virendra Choudhary v. The Bihar State Electricity Bord And ORS
Patna High Court CWJC No.7113 of 2015 dt.09-10-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7113 of 2015 =========================================================== Virendra Choudhary, Son of Late Jageshwar Choudhary, Resident of MohallaManda Toli, Ward No. 5, P.O. & P.S. Lalganj, District Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bihar State Electricity Board, Hazipur.
4. The Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bihar State Electricity Board, Lalganj, District Vaishali. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-10-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs - "(i) For issuance of writ in the appropriate nature for quashing of the Bill sent by the respondent-authorities dated 24.09.2013 whereby the respondent-authority has sent a Bill excessive against the order passed by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) For further direction to the respondents-authority to issue afresh Bill giving detail consumption of unit after considering that in fact since Feb. 2014 to March, 2008 the transformer was burnt and it was not replaced and therefore the respondent-authority are not entitled either to charge any fixed unit of consumption and as the respondents- authority has committed mistake on their
Patna High Court CWJC No.7113 of 2015 dt.09-10-2018 own the respondents- authority is not entitled to charge any interest.
(iii) For further direction to the respondent-authority not to disturb in peaceful supply of electric energy as except the said Bill the petitioner is continuing making payment. (iv) And for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled the eye of law."
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts that statutory remedy by approaching the CGRF is available under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act for redressal of his grievances.
3. This Court therefore, is not inclined to enter into the merits of the matter. The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the CGRF with an appropriate application for redressal of his grievances. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. (Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 10.10.2018 Transmission Date N.A.