AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—Sri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel is directed to take notice for the respondents.
The Petitioner was served with a provisional assessment order at Annexure ''B'' dated 3.6.2010 demanding a sum of Rs. 17,89/834/- towards backbilling charges in respect of installation bearing RR No. N 6.HT.48. The Petitioner filed a reply as per Annexure ''C'' dated 8.6.2010. The second Respondent/assessing officer has passed an order at Annexure ''D'' dated 15.6.2010 confirming the backbilling charges demanded in Annexure ''B''. The Petitioner filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, BESCOM, (''Consumer Forum'' for short) challenging the order at Annexure ''B''. The Consumer Forum has rejected the complaint holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
It is evident from the material on record that the second Respondent has served a provisional assessment order at Annexure ''B'' dated 3.6.2010 demanding payment of backbilling charges of Rs. 17,89,834/- in respect of installation bearing No. N6.HT.48. It is also evident that the Petitioner has filed objections as per Annexure ''C'' The second Respondent after considering the objections has passed the order at Annexure ''D'' It is also clear that the complaint filed by the Petitioner before the Consumer Forum, BESCOM, has been rejected on the ground of its maintainability.
Sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for the service provisional assessment order. Sub-section (3) of Section 126 states that the person on whom an order has been served under Sub-section (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty (30) days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person. It is clear from the order at Annexure ''D'' that the second Respondent has not afforded an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. Thus, the order at Annexure ''D'' is not only opposed to the principles of natural justice but also contrary to sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the Act. In my opinion, the second Respondent has to reconsider the matter after hearing the Petitioner.
In the result, writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order at Annexure ''D'' dated 15.6.2010 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the second Respondent for disposal in accordance with law. The second Respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner before passing the order. It is needless to say that the electricity supply shall not be disrupted by the Respondents to the installation of the Petitioner pending disposal of the matter as above. No costs.
Sri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel is granted eight weeks from today to file his vakalath on behalf of ''he respondents.