IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1706 of 2009 (M/S) Dr. Vinita Puri wife of Sri Dr. V.K. Puri, resident of Puri Sanjivinai Hospital, Dehradun Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ……Petitioner. Versus Uttarakhand Power Corporation through Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division (R) Shail Vihar, Rishikesh, District Dehradun and another. …..Respondents. Ms. Prabha Noliyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Sri B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate, for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Date:- November 4, 2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. Heard Ms. Prabha Noliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the respondent no. 1 and further sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to refund the extra amount of money to the petitioner which the petitioner has paid, vide bills dated 25.8.2009 of Rs. 6,61,749.00, which was more than the actual assessment and was an illegal assessment bill demanded by the respondent no. 1 and also prayed writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to assess as fresh the bill of petitioner in light of Section 126 (5) of Electricity Act, 2003. I have perused the impugned notice dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) wherein it has been mentioned, “You are, therefore, served this provisional assessment bill in compliance of Section 126 of 2 the IEA 2003 and requested to make payment of the bill within one week period or make submission/representation regarding above bill to the undersigned within one week period. If you fail to represent regarding above or fail to deposit the above assessment bill within 1 week period the same may be finalized and legal proceedings may be initiated against you which may include disconnection of the connection and recovery proceedings.” The petitioner did not make any representation to the authority concerned, i.e., executive engineer concerned. According to the petitioner, the assessment was provisional. And the amount had not been calculated properly and there is no mention of period during which assessment was made. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for the disposal of the writ petition with giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the authority concerned for refund of the excess amount which was deposited under the impugned notice. The prayer is innocuous. The petitioner may make a representation for redressal of his grievance raised in the writ petition before the respondent no. 1. If the representation is made by the petitioner, the respondent shall take decision on the representation of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) 4.11.2009 RMY