M/S.Rajeswari Infrastructure v. The Assistant Engineer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.01.2022 C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.NO.272 OF 2017 AND W.M.P.NOS.290, 291 OF 2017 & 22801 OF 2018 M/s.Rajeswari Infrastructure Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, G.Ramamurthy
...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Assistant Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Thulukanath Amman Koil Street, Pallikaranai, Chennai - 600 100.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance), TANGEDCO, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Medavakkam, Chennai.
... Respondents PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to communication downloaded on 23.11.2016, pertaining to the demand made for the month of September 2016 to October 2016 to the tune of Rs.5,40,764/- by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to resolve the dispute of excess billing for the said period by considering the representation dated 18.11.2016 sent by the petitioner within a stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to communication month of September 2016 to October 2016 to the tune of Rs.5,40,764/- by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to resolve the dispute of excess billing for the said period by considering the representation dated 18.11.2016 sent by the petitioner within a stipulated period.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, this Writ Petition has been filed challenging the demand notice, which was issued by the respondents, without providing opportunity to the petitioner. He would further submit that, the petitioner has also given a representation on 18.11.2016, to recheck the meter, however, the same was not considered by the respondents. Futher, after the issuance of demand notice, the service connection was disconnected and thereafter, it was reconnected. In the event, the petitioner was granted opportunity, he would have explained his case to the respondents, whereas, without providing proper opportunity, the demand notice was issued, which is illegal and prayed to quash the same.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the current consumption reading was taken wrongly by the Assessor, therefore, re-assessment was made and demand notice was issued against the petitioner by taking average bi-monthly assessment before 02/2015. Further, she submits that the necessary disciplinary action was taken and punishment was also awarded to the concerned Assessor, who took wrong reading and failed to inform the Higher Officials about the defective meter in the petitioner's place. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has alternative remedy before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which is the fact finding authority, but the petitioner has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that, liberty may be granted to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.
5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that, due to the reason that there is lot of disputed fact in the present
case, this Court is not in a position to deal with the same and it would be appropriate to relegate the matter to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, where the petitioner supposed to have filed an appeal against the demand notice issued by the respondents. Therefore, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and file an appeal, if so advised, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In such case, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum shall entertain the appeal without insisting upon the limitation aspect. In the event, the petitioner filed an appeal within the stipulated time, the interim order already granted by this Court against the disconnection of the electricity connection shall continue till the disposal of the appeal.
6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rst To:
1. The Assistant Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Thulukanath Amman Koil Street, Pallikaranai, Chennai - 600 100.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Operation & Maintenance), TANGEDCO, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Medavakkam, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.4773 +1cc to Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate, S.R.No.4976 W.P.No.272 of 2017 PMK(CO) PM/08/02/2022