I^HeoyRTOFJUD!GATUREeHHArnSGARM:Bli-ASPUR niii ,» lilil^ .{'i: 1:1 SinaleBench:-Hon'bleShriS.R. NAYAK, CJ 140 WRITPEnTIOELNO, 6676 OF 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. M/s. Pfakash Industries Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Iroving its Registered Office at 15 KM-stone, Delhj Road, Hissar (Haryaha) & having its Sponge lron;Plantat Vitlage Koiadabri, Champa; District IJanjgir- Champa, Through: its President (Corporate Aflalrs) & Power of Attomey Holder M/s. Pralcash Industries i Ltd., Champa (Chhattisgarh)! Versus Chief Elecirical Inspactor, Gpvt. of Ctihattisgarll, Office bf Chief Electrfcal tnspector, ^/437, Bairan iBazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Chhattisgarh State ElectrieityllBoard, Through: its Secretary, Dsingania; Raipur Ghief Engineer, Bilaspur T?egion, ChhatUsgarh State Electricity jBoaKl, Tifra,Bilaspur(CG) Exacutive Engineer l(QStM), Chhattisgarh State Electricity JB<?aKl, Cham|M,Districtjanjgir-Champa^<3) Supenntending Engineer ,(Q&M]|, Chhattisgarh State Eleictncifyi Board; Janjgir Circle, District Janjgif - Champa(GG^. > S^nlor Accounts Qfflcer, eiilirtfisgarh State Eleetricity Board, Tifra, Bilaspur ^(CG). ' • ;::'.''::'.:,' Present: Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, leamed^GOuns^l fortbe petitioner. Mr. N.K. Agrayi^, Dy. Advoeate General, wiUi Mr. Sandeep leamedGovtJAdv.,foTresp6nclrintNo.f. Mr. Yogesh Randey, learned:cpunselforresppndents2to6. w^ III/i ~l~ !!-'.:! ss ORDER (Passed on28u'November 2005) Admittedly, against the jmpugned bills/orders an appeal lies under Sub-secUon (2)ofSection 36 ofthe Indian ElectricityAct, 1910. *F (2) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, lam df the considered opinion that there is no iustification for the petitioner to rush to thls Court under ArUcle 226 of the Constitutlon of Indla wffiout exhausting altemative efficacious statutory remedies. In taking thjsopinion, lam also guided by the obsen/ationofthe Apex Courtasobserved inpara 3ofthe judgmsnt in thecase ofAssistantCollectorofCentraIExcise.ehandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. andothers (AIR198SSC 330). In thatjudgment.the Supreme Courtquite apUysaid thatttieinatter involving the revenue should not be entertained under Articte 226 of the Consfitution uniess the afiected intere?t exhausted altemative statutory remedies. On Ithat snort ground, 1 am not Inclined to enierteln this writ petitjon. In the result, t dismiss the writ petition. However, it Js directed that if the peHtioner files an appeal before theappellate authority in terms of Sub-section (2) of SecBon 36 ofttie tndian Etectricity Actwithin fBteen days fromtoday, the appellate authorify is directed to dispose of the appeal without reference to the liniilation, as expeditiously as possible at any rate withina period of fbur months from the date of submission of suchappeal. | Sd/- Chief Justice l^ s