C<) 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Writ Petition (C| N0.^'?^ of 2008 Kishore Agrawal, Son of Shri N. M. Agrawal, aged about 38 years, Income Tax Practitioner, Resident of Gayatri Mandir Road, Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondents "^-^' A^ Vs. : i. ^Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Dangania, Raipur, 'Chhattisgarh 2. The Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Tifra, Bilaspur 3 The Executive EngineerfCity Division), CSEB, Bilaspur (CG) WRIT^^EnnON UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS/DIRECTION ETC., S.3 HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. W.P. (C) No.6954/2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Kamal Kishore Agrawal Versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board 85 Ors. P^titioiiiinder Article226 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mazid Ali, Advocates appears on behalf of Shri A.S. Gaharwar, counsel for the respondents. i / J^ ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 06.01.2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed the correctness and validity of memo dated 6.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) and the action of the respondents, by which the electricity connection installed in the name of the petitioner in his premises, has been disconnected on 28.11.2008. 2. Facts necessary for decision of the present case are that the pe.titioner made an application for grant of 3- phase electricity connection in his residence by depositing an amount of Rs.5,450/- on 21.5.2007. Thereafter, the respondent-authority granted 3-phase electrlcity connection td the petitioher in the month of May, 2007. According to the petitioner, the petitioner, 'i..ii<'nsa ffm^ i'NESfl ':^'^y./ -2- Sl| right from day one, has been markihg payments for electricity due as per the bills which have been raised frora time to time and according to the petitioner there are no due outstanding against service connection provided to him. A bill dated 31.10.2008 was issued to the petitioner whichstated that no amoun-t was payable, as an amount of Rs.1,238/- outstanding in favour of respohdent. However, without any notice or information, the respondent authority disconnected the elecfa-icity connection of the petitioner on 28.11.2008. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation (Annexure P-5), whereafter, respondent authority sent memo dated 6.12.2008 informing that the operative reason for disconnecting the electricity is that an amoiint of Rs.48,901.75/- is outstanding in the name of petitioner's mofher Smt. SEU-la Agrawal, who had taken a service connection in the same premises earlier and whose service connection was disconnected on account of non-payment of outstanding bill. 3. Amongst various contentions raised, the foremost contention of leamed counsel for the petitioner is that before proceeding to disconnect the connection of the petitioner under the service No. 1001-965297/50-01-80-20-081031, which was provided to the petitioner on his application, no opportunity of hearing was afforded nor statutory notice 'as required under Section 56 of fhe Electricity Act, 2003 (fbr short "the-Act of 2007} was issued. Jf Leamed counsel for the petitioner submiited that the disconnection is therefore, not only violative of statutory action of provision I, :—~'IU 1!\ '*:-»I/'.?'1 -3- $s but is also violative of principles of natural justice, as the action of the respondents seriously prejudiced the petitioner in the matter of enjoyment of electricity supply. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that there exists a statutory alternative remedy to the petitioner to raise dispute before the Electricity Redressal Forum. Learned counsel for the petitiorier submits that the petitioner's mother had taken electricity connection in the same premises under a different service niunber, who failed to pay an outstanding bill of Rs.48,901.75/-. Later on, the petitioner, who is the son, applied for connection in the same premises, though, under a different application. As the outstanding amount was not paid, respondent-authorities were justified in disconnecting the electncity of the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner has been given opportunity to clear the outstanding bills upon which the authority assured to restore electricity connectioh. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition made by learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived in law. Existence of altemative remedy does not altogether bar jurisdiction of this Court and in appropriate cases, this Court may exercise its jurisdictioh to'entertain the petition notwithstanding existence of an altemative reraedy. It is well ^tS b ...^ ~ "^. j^ri^"< '•"^ :^y^"^ "^aa®^' -4- 56 /l! settled law that in cases where there is violation of principles of natural justice, existence of altemative remedy may not be insisted by the Court. Accordingly, the objection is rejected. 7. A bare perusal of Section 56 of the Act of 2003 clearly shows that before disconnecting the electricity supply, the service holder is entitied to not less than 15 clear days' notice in writing and providing him an opportunily to deposit the amount under protest, pending disposal of any dispute. Admittedly, no such notice was given to the petitioner as required under Section 56 of the Act of 2003. The provision of Section 56 as also the principles of natural justice required the respondent-authority tp give fhe petitioner proper opportunity of hearing against proposed action of disconnection on whatsoever grounds available to them. 8. The other submission oflearned counsel for the petitioner is that the electricity connection which was provided to the petitioner could not be disconnected on the groi.md fhat any amount of bill was outstanding and payable by any of his relations.In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner reUes upon the judgment in the case of PradeepKumar Agrawal Vs. Union oflndia and another1. He submits that under any circumstance, such disconnection was not at aU permissible in law. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the premises wherein the petition had obtained the connection were one and 1 AIR 1999 M.P. 65 li'Bi T -5- I1.' ! 'S ta ';^.. 'w<^ ':<;aaaESS<s"' S7 i Praveen fl the saine and an ingenious method was devised to avoid payment of connection for providing eleetncity in the same premises by making another application in the name of the petitioner, who is the son ofdefaulter person. 10. In view of what has been held by this Court as above, the action of disconnecting electricity supply of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law for the simple reason that the petitioner has neither been afforded any opportunity nor a notice as statutorily required under Section 56 of the Act of 2003 was served on him. It is not necessary for this Court to consider the other aspects. In case, respondents propose to take any action, if any, by complying with the provision of law, it will always be open for the petitioner to raise all such contention before the concerned authority. ll.In the flnal analysis, the action of the respondent in disconnecting electricity ofthe petitioner is declared illegal.As the electricily connection of the petitioner has already been restored by the respondents in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court earlier, no further direction is required to be issued in the matter of restoration of the electricity. ^ 12. Petition is accordingly allowed. 13. There shall be, however, no orders as to costs. ^^a^ ^^as^& ^o^" « 21 liniTBra