IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 994 (MS) OF 2006 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. .........Petitioner. Versus 1. M/s Mahindra Industries, Bye Pass Road, Kichha Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaun Zone, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .............Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 995 (MS) OF 2006 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. .........Petitioner. Versus 1. M/s Bansal Daal Mill Industrial Area, Kichha Road, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaun Zone, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .............Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 996 (MS) OF 2006 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. .........Petitioner. Versus 2 1. M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mill, Bhura Rani Road, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaun Zone, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .............Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 997 (MS) OF 2006 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. .........Petitioner. Versus 1. Mahaveer Rice and Daal Mill Rudrapur Road, Kichha Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaun Zone, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .............Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 998 (MS) OF 2006 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. .........Petitioner. Versus 1. M/s Enterprises, Kashipur Road, Rudrapur Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaun Zone, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .............Respondents. 3 & WRIT PETITION NO. 999 (MS) OF 2006 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. .........Petitioner. Versus 1. M/s Punjab Rice Mill Rudrapur Road, Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaun Zone, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .............Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 1000 (MS) OF 2006 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. .........Petitioner. Versus 1. M/s Gir Aggroyals Haldwani Bye Pas Road, Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaun Zone, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .............Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 (MS) OF 2006 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. .........Petitioner. Versus 4 1. M/s Rudrapur Paddy Products Industrial Area, Kichha Road, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaun Zone, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .............Respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 (MS) OF 2006 Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. .........Petitioner. Versus 1. Agarwal Rice Mill, 18/2 Industrial Area, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Kumaun Zone, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .............Respondents. Dated: 02.08.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2. By the present writ petitions, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29th May, 2006 passed by the respondent no. 2. Briefly stated, respondent no. 2 has challenged the tariff challenging the bills sent by the petitioner. The District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, District Nainital has passed the order in writ petition No. 994 (ms) of 2006 to the following effect:- “Moreover, it will not be out of place to mention that in clause 5 of RTS 7 (tariff dated 8-9-03) rate of charge there is no specific mention that in case if the amount calculated on 5 the basis of energy charge and fixed demand remains less than the minimum charges then minimum charges shall be claimed in clause 5 after the words to the ategory “the words of minimum charges whichever are higher have not been written. The schedule given in rate of charge gives the rates of energy charge fixed demand and minimum charge. If minimum charges are to be claimed there should be specific mention that in case the amount calculated on the basis of energy charges and fixed demand remain less than the amount calculated on the basis of minimum charges then minimum charge shall be claimed. By simply mentioning minimum charge in the schedule forum cannot hold that it will apply in this case. In view of the above discussions there remain no doubt that the minimum charges during off season period in seasonal industries will not apply and the department can claim energy charges and fixed demand with the condition that the billable demand shall be actual demand. It may also be mentioned that in the previous tariff it was specifically mentioned that minimum charges shall apply to seasonal industries. Forum may also mention that he above discussion is relevant or applicable to the cases where the question of off season period in seasonal industries is concerned. Above observation or discussion will not apply toher cases except off season period cases. In view of the above discussions the department should take steps to revise the bills of the complainants. No relief can be given in case no. 16/2004 M/s Bansal Dal Mill Rudrapur Case No. 08/2004 M/s Rudrapur Paddy Products Rudrapur and case no. 17/2004 M/s Shiv Shakti 6 Rice Mill Rudrapur. They may file fresh proper applications before the forum it they like.” Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that there shall be an establishment of the appellate Tribunal for the hearing of the appeals against the order of the adjudicating officer or of appropriate commission under this Act. Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is quoted below:- “110.. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal. –The Central Government shall, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to hear appeals against the orders of the adjudicating officer or the Appropriate Commission under this Act.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the order having been passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, the appeal lies before the appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, therefore, having alternative remedy of filing the appeal, the writ petition are not maintainable on account of alternative remedy. However, it will be open for the petitioner to file the appeals and delay if any will not come in filing the appeals before the appellate Authority. The petitioner is also permitted to file application for staying the proceedings. In case the stay application is filed, the same may be considered in accordance with law. However, for a period of one month, order passed by the respondent no. 2 shall remain in abeyance. Writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 02.08.2006 Rathour