IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 683 of 2010. M/s Agromec Engineers, Head Office and work Haridwar Road, Near B.H.E.L. Tiraha, Bahadrabad, Haridwar, through its C.E.O. Jatin Agarwal S/O Shri V.K.Agarwal. … Petitioner. Vs. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, Dehradun and three others. …Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date May 12, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned demand and disconnection notice dated 27-4-2010 issued by the respondent no.2- Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division (Rural), Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited Haridwar (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Notice was given to the petitioner on the ground that the electricity meter of the petitioner was recording slow reading. According to the petitioner no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuance of the bill/disconnection notice to the petitioner, while there is no fault of the petitioner. The meter was installed by the licensee company, i.e. the respondent no.1. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended firstly that the impugned notice itself is defective because the notice was issued on 28-4-2010 through registered post and according to the petitioner, the same was received on 3-5-2010. As per provision of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short the Act), it is mandatory to give a notice in writing of not less than 15 clear days. Secondly, as per provision of Section 2 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, there is mandatory requirement for provisional assessment of the electricity charges payable by the petitioner and opportunity of filing objection is to be given to the petitioner as envisaged by sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, since compliance of Section 126 of the Act has not been made by the respondents, therefore, on these grounds the impugned demand notice is not tenable in the eye of law. Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act to approach the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraph 33 of the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. and others [(2007) 8, Supreme Court Cases, Page 381] wherein the Apex Court has inter alia observed that “Thus a complete machinery has been provided in Section 42(5) and 42(6) for redressal of grievances of individual consumers. Hence wherever a forum/ombudsman have been created the consumers can only resort to these bodies for redressal of their grievances.” Besides, the Apex Court has also approved the decisions of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Suresh Jindal v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. [(2006) 132 DLT 339 (DB)] and Dheeraj Singh v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. [(2006) 127 DLT 525 (DB)], wherein it has been held that the forum and ombudsman have power to grant interim orders. Learned counsel for the respondents therefore contended that in case the petitioner has any grievance, he may approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for redressal of his grievance. Without entering into the merits of the case, since in the impugned notice the disconnection date has been shown 12-5-2010, therefore, in the interest of justice, 15 days’ time from today is given to the petitioner to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for redressal of his grievance. Till then, the impugned 3 demand/disconnection notice (Annexure-1 to the petition) shall not be given effect to by the respondents. However, the Consumer Greivance Redressal Forum shall decide the case of the petitioner including the interim relief application, if moved by the petitioner at the time of filing application, expeditiously, after hearing the parties concerned, without being influenced by the order of this Court. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4