1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.5450/2007 Nagpur Engineering Company Private Limited, having its establishment at Plot No.F-8, M.I.D.C. Area, Hingna, Nagpur – now named and styled as Jayaswals Neco Limited, through its General Manager (Corporate) – Indraraj Dhanlal Thakre PETITIONER VERSUS Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, having its office at Prakash Bhavan, Link road, Sadar, Nagpur. RESPONDENT .... Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Deshpande, Advocate . for the respondent. .... Coram : A.P. Lavande & P.D. Kode, JJ. Dated : 26th February, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. P. Lavande, J.) 2 1. Heard Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. 4. By this petition, the petitioner challenges communication dated 22.8.2007 and the notice of disconnection dated 16.11.2007 issued by the respondent. The petitioner is a consumer of high tension electric supply at the factory premises situated at F-8, M.I.D.C. Area, Hingna Nagpur, for the purpose of industrial activities. 5. The respondent sent communication dated 22.8.2007 along with provisional assessment bill in the sum of Rs. 29,52,336.98, beingthe amount due calculated as per the Electricity Act 2003 (“the Act” for short) to the petitioner. On 30.8.2007 the petitioner submitted its objection to the proposed assessment. By communication dated 21.9.2007 the respondent called upon the petitioner to appear before it for hearing on 25.9.2007 in terms of Section 126 of the Act 2006. It appears that the hearing took place on 3 the said date. On 29.9.2007 the petitioner issued cheque in the sum of Rs. 29,52,336.98 to the respondent. According to the petitioner, the said cheque was issued on account of inadvertence on the part of the Accounts Department and, therefore, by communication dated 1.10.2007 the petitioner called upon the respondent not to encash the cheque. It appears that even before receipt of the said communication, the respondent had presented the cheque and the said cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, the respondent threatened disconnection and issued communication dated 16/11/2007 calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 33,80,176/- failing which the petitioner was threatened that the electric supply will be disconnected. Challenging the said action of the respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 6. Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has invited our attention to Section 126 (3) of the Act and submitted that since the petitioner had disputed the provisional assessment, the petitioner is entitled to be heard. He further submitted that the petitioner was heard and instead of passing final order, the respondent sent the 4 impugned communication and threatened disconnection. He, therefore, submitted that the petition is liable to be allowed and the direction be given to the respondent to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate order under Section 126 (3) of the Act. 7. Per contra, Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. 8. We have considered the rival contentions. 9. By interim order dated 26th November, 2007, this Court directed the respondent not to take coercive action for recovery of the amount and the order is operative till date. Having regard to this order, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the communication dated 16.11.2007 and direct the respondent to hear the petitioner in terms of Section 126 of the Act and pass appropriate order. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 7th March, 2009 at 11.00 a. m. The respondent shall pass appropriate order in terms of Section 126 (3) of the Act, expeditiously and, in any case, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Needless to mention that the respondent shall not take any coercive action against 5 the petitioner till the respondent passes order under Section 126 (3) of the Act. It is made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the rival claims. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE