Patna High CourtCWJC/6993/2017disposed

Mohammad Shahid v. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited And ORS

2025-04-11Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6993 of 2017 ====================================================== Mohammad Shahid Son of late Mohammad Aminuddin Resident of Flat No. 404 Sylvon Heritaze Apartment, Birla Mandir Road , Subzibagh, Post Office Bankipur, Police Station Pirbahore, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - 21 2.

The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna. 3.

The Electrical Executive Engineer, Patna City, Patna 4.

The Electrical Assistant Engineer, Gayghat, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha -2, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 11-04-2025

1. The writ petition is filed for quashing the bill issued by the respondent authorities on 24.06.2016, whereby a demand of Rs. 8,87,741.00 was raised and further directing the respondents to immediately refund the deposit amount, to the petitioner along with interest thereon, and other reliefs for which the petitioner be found entitled to.

2. It is stated that the petitioner, upon application to the respondent authorities, obtained

2/5 a new service connection under the LTIS tariff for a 40 HP load for the purpose of operating a snacks factory, namely M/s Suruchi Foods. The electricity meter was installed on 01.09.2014, and the connection was subsequently provided.

3. As per the Writ petition the petitioner, after making the final payment on 19.03.2015, applied for permanent disconnection of the electricity connection and requested a refund of the security deposit. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not carry out any business on the premises after March 2015. Furthermore, on 04.03.2017, when the petitioner visited respondent No. 4 to enquire about the refund, he was informed that a bill dated 24.06.2016 for an amount of ₹8,87,741/- was pending against him.

4. Per contra, the Learned Senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, as Annexure-4 enclosed with the writ petition is alleged to be fake document, upon which the entire claim of the petitioner is based. Hence, the

3/5 present writ application is liable to be dismissed in limine.

5. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the electricity meter was installed on 01.09.2014, and the petitioner consumed energy from 01.09.2014 to 19.07.2016. The outstanding energy dues amounting to Rs. 8,87,741/- are said to be in accordance with the applicable tariff, and the petitioner is liable to make the payment of the said amount.

6. It is further submitted that the meter was installed at the petitioner's premises on 01.09.2014, and energy bills were served regularly. However, the petitioner failed to pay the energy dues, resulting in the disconnection of the connection on 03.01.2015. Subsequently, after depositing Rs. 19,280/- towards energy dues, vide No. CMA 38942547 dated 19.03.2015, and towards re-connection fee of Rs. 900/- vide No. CMA 38942548 dated 19.03.2015, the electricity supply was restored. Eventually, the connection was permanently disconnected on 24.06.2016, on

4/5 account of outstanding energy dues of Rs. 8,87,741/-

7. The Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances by approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF).

8. Taking this into consideration, and noting that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an application before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, the writ petition is disposed of without entering into the merit or demerit of the petitioner's case, the petitioner is directed to avail himself of the said alternative remedy before the CGRF. Any delay in filing the application shall be condoned by the CGRF, and the CGRF is directed to dispose of the petitioner's application within two months from the date of filing.

9. With the above said observation, the Writ petition is disposed of.

10. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,

5/5 shall stand disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) Spd/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.04.2025 Transmission Date