AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner-S.R.S Steels Pvt. Ltd., is aggrieved by the demand raised under impugned order dated 03.01.2018 vide Annexure-A by the
Asst.Executive Engineer (Elec.) on account of the alleged Tariff difference payable on account of the Open Acess normal Tariff.
The said demand of Rs.1,25,75,948/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner on the peril of disconnection of power supply immediately
and the same is therefore sought to be challenged by the petitioner-company before this Court by way of present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sridhar Prabhu submitted that since the impugned order did not give any details and reasons, the
petitioner even filed a representation before the said authority vide Annexure-J dated 09.01.2018 but without adjudicating the said liability by a
speaking order, the Asst.Executive Engineer (Elec.) is seeking to disconnect the power supply of the petitioner for such non-payment, whereas the
said demand or illegal. Hence, the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-authority is bound in law and is therefore
expected to pass a detailed speaking order on any liability which is sought to be fastened by such authority upon the addressee or the subject of
such levy. The impugned difference of Tariff which is sought to be recovered by the Respondent-BESCOM from the petitioner may have a
background or reason for it, but the same has not been discussed and adjudicated by the Respondent-authority before issuing the Demand Notice
in question. The Demand Notice should only follow the such quasi-judicial order to be passed, particularly when an objection to such demand is
raised by the Consumer or the assessee, like in the present case.
Since the petitioner intends to challenge the said levy on different grounds, such grounds/objections first deserves to be considered and
adjudicated by the authority concerned of the Respondent-public authority itself. The same does not appear to have been done in the present case.
In the absence of any reasons recorded by the Respondent-authority, the question of legality or illegality thereof cannot be straightaway
adjudicated by this Court that too in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because such
demand necessarily may have the mixed question of facts and law in the background. Unless they are properly discussed and high lightened and
reasons for such demand are recorded by the concerned authority, unnecessary litigation ensues, which certainly deserves to be avoided.
It is the failure of such authorities even though they may have be technical hands like Engineers of BESCOM in the present case, but when they
discharge the quasi-judicial function of raising a demand in accordance with the Statutes or Bye-laws and Tariff Orders, they are expected to pass
appropriate speaking orders meeting and dealing with the objections raised by the Consumer or the applicants.
Time and again this kind of absence of reasons recorded, results in multiplicity of litigation before this Court burdening the dockets of this Court
unnecessarily. If such orders do not contain the detailed reasons, the genuineness, correctness or legality thereof, cannot be tested by the Courts
and in the absence of the reasons, the much larger and deeper exercise has to be undertaken by the Courts of law for such mixed question of facts
and law, which cannot be expected for adjudicating upon on such mixed question of facts and law straightaway in writ jurisdiction.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that any authority discharging such quasi judicial function has to pass proper adjudication
orders before raising such demands.
In the present case, apparently, it has not been done and therefore, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the said authority in the present
case. Lest such different lower authorities of the public authority like BESCOM, which has a large litigants before this Court, also take different
view of the matter, it is also further enjoined upon the Head of the BESCOM namely, the Managing Director to accord his reasoned approval for
such order to be passed by the lower authorities, showing his application of mind, so that a uniform stand of BESCOM at the hands of different
authorities in different Divisions is reflected.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent-BESCOM authority to pass appropriate fresh orders
in the matter dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner- company in details and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
after quoting the relevant Statues, Bye-laws and Tariff orders and recording their reasons and meeting with the objections raised by the petitioner-
applicant in a point wise manner, the detailed order again deserves to be passed by the said Authority with the reasoned approval by the Head of
the Department namely, the Managing Director of the BESCOM, showing his application of mind for either approval or disapproval of the reasons
recorded by the lower authority.
The petitioner may appear before the concerned authority in the first instance on 19.02.2018 and a period of three weeks is allowed to the
Respondent authorities to pass orders as indicated above. For a period of four weeks from today, the Respondent will not take any precipitative
action against the petitioner- company and without passing the speaking order as indicated above.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Copy of this order be sent to the Respondents forthwith.