R\. K ^ -s^'1 y^ ^^'- ^ ^? ] 0-25-7 y - /-- ^_^ 1n IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (c) N0 .3.6 &<6 OF 2009 PETITIONER Thakur Singh, S/o Brahmadev Singh, Aged about 85 years, R/o Iron Steel Works Plot N0.17A, Industrial State, Bhilai, P.3.- Jamul, Distt. Durg (CG) RESPONDENTS COMPLAINT^NT VERSUS .' 1 ^M"'2 <>>';ty ~\^ ^' ^ •^.^J>. "^A Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through Distribution Center, ^Chhawani, District Durg (CG) Executive Engineer, Sandharan Avam Sanchalan • Sambhag, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg (CG) Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Chhawani, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^v., '•^ :r^' ^' ^3 '^.. y. M ^•^Sl HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PEriTjONER WRIT PETITION (0 N0.2608 OF 2009 Thakur Singh Versus RE81;'ONDENTS Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. F)re8ent:" Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 30th day of June,2011) 1. I leard learned counsel for the parties. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the wrong assessment of the electricity consumption was made by the Assessing Officer i.e. Assistant Engineer on account of allegation of theft of electricity. The Special Judge (Electricity Act), Durg, in special case No. 18/07 (Chhattisgarh State Electhcity Board v. ThakurSingh} byjudgment dated 25-10-2008 (Annexure - P/6) has acquitted the petitioner on merits. Thus, the fresh assessment should be done accordingly. 3 Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing forthe respondents, submits that the appeal against the judgment dated 25-10-2008 is pending consideration before this Court. Shri Tiwari further submits that the bill was not raised on account of any penalty, but was raised for the consumption of electricity by the petitioner. 4 Be that as it may, since there is a provision of appeal, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation (appeal) to the respondent No.2 against the order passed by the Assessing Officer i.e. Assistant Engineer. In the event a representation (appeal) is rnade, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation (appeal). Shri Tiwari has no objection to consideration of the same by the appellate authority within the specified time. !5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above observations and directions. No order asto costs. __-- Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge