--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: Hon. Mr. S. C. Sharma, J WRIT PETITION NO. 12062 / 2010 M/s. NEW TECH Pipes Ltd., Vs. Managing Director, MPAKVN A N D WRIT PETITION NO. 12063 / 2010 M/s. NEW TECH Pipes Ltd., Vs. Managing Director, MPAKVN & 2 Others * * * * * [ J U D G M E N T ] ( 18/11/2010) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, both the cases were heard together and a common order is being passed. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petitioner being aggrieved by the electricity bill issued by the respondents dt. 23/11/09, the additional demand dt. 10/8/10 and also for restoration of electricity supply. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner company is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having a manufacturing unit at --- 2 --- D 59-61, Indore Special Economic Zone, Phase I, Pithampur Distt. Dhar and the petitioner has entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 for supply of electricity. The petitioner has further stated that a bill was raised by the respondents on 23/11/09 directing the petitioner Company to deposit the outstanding dues and later on a complaint has also been filed u/S. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court while challenging the demand notice in the matter. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondents and the contention of the respondent No.1 and 2 that the petitioner has earlier approached to this court by filing WP No. 9151/09 and a prayer was made for quashing of provisional bill dt. 23/11/09 and also for restoration of supply. It has also been stated that the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn and again claiming the same relief the present writ petition has been filed. Respondents have also stated that the petitioner does have an alternative remedy u/S. 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 as well as u/S. 135 for restoration of supply and unless and until the petitioner deposit the entire outstanding dues the question of restoration of supply does not arise. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused --- 3 --- the record. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the respondents have initiated proceedings under the Electricity Act 2003 and the petitioner does have a remedy u/S. 127 of the Electricity Act 2003. Not only this the petitioner for restoration of supply is having a remedy u/S. 135 of the Electricity Act and this court is of the considered opinion that as the petitioner is facing a criminal case for theft of electricity the fact whether the petitioner has committed theft or not has to be decided after appreciation of evidence by the trial court alone and therefore as the petitioner does have an alternative remedy in the matter the question of entertaining this present writ petition does not arise. The petitioner shall be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law under the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 ventilating his grievances before the appropriate appellate authority. The admission is declined. In case the appeal is preferred the competent appellate authority shall decide the same on merits. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR