HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG^H AT BILASPUR D1VISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR S1NHA, J. APPELLANT PETiTIONER Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2008 M/s Manmest tspat Private Umited; Through Director Shri Rajendra Agrawai, S/o Late Motilal Agrawal, aged about 42 years, R/o Nandini Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through Chairman, C.S.E.B., Raipur, Distrtet Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Engineer, C.S.E.B. (Commercial), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Engineer (R/R), C.S.E.B, (Commercial), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Superintendent Engineer (O & M Division), C.S.E.B., Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5. Executive Engineer (O & M Division), C.S.E.B., Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 6. Ex. Engineer ((O), O/o C.E.(R.R.) C.S.E.B., Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Wrjt ADpeal under Section 2(1) oHhe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act.2006. Present: Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, teamed Standing counsel for the respondents. SK^.'•^. JUDGMENT (13th March, 2068) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard learned counsei for the parties on admission. 2. Appeltant - M/s Manmeet Ispat Private Limited has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 07-02-2008, passed in W.P.(C) No. 7459/2007. 3. Appeilant / petitioner filed the writ petifion for the followtng reliefs: - "7.01. That, the termination of agreement (Annexure P/1) and orders conveyed therefore i.e. Annexure P/13 (order dated 21-09-2007), P/16 (order dated 05-10-2007), P/17 (order dated 09-10-2007) may kindly be revoked. 7.02. That, the disconnection of energy supply may kindly be held illegal and arbitrary and order Annexure P/18 revoked and reconnection of eiectrical supply may be ordered. 7.03. That, payment of Rs.1,09,63,662/- as arrears at the rate of 3361 KVA may ta'ndly be ordered to be stopped ; instead payment of minimum energy charges for the month of July and August, 2005 may kindly be ordered at the rate of60 KVA. 7.04. That, after disconnection of electrical supply in the month of September, 2005 the petitioner being not liable for further payments of energy, a direction may kindly be given to the effect that no amount be assessed or recovered after the disconnection. i!yil~"°iB»!. •"<—i:»"'i'. ~-.^s^s^ ^^y- \v: *-l"-Kffi-^"'r' '? 7.05. That, the security deposit of Rs.63,77,000/- may kindly ordered to be refunded. 7.06. That, consequential relief for whlch the petitioner is entitled may kindly be ordered. 7.07. That, the effect and operation of the order Annexure P/13, P/16 and P/17 may klndly be stayed. 7.08. That, this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any other order or such writ or dlrection or relief in favour of the petitioner against the respondents as it deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. The appellant / petitioner, thus, in substance was seeking quashina of the order dated 21-09-2007, 05-10-2007 and 09-10-2007. 5. Learned Single Judge finding that the writ petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a complaint before the 'Forum for redressal of the grievances of the consumer' and a further statutory appeal before the 'Etectricity Ombudsman' and also taking note of the fact that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact dectined to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. 6. Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in decHning to entertain the writ petition merely because the writ petitioner had an alternative remedy. 7. On due consideration of the submlssions of learned counse^for the parties; their pleacfings which ex facie reveals that the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petitlon have been specifically denied by the respondents in their reply filed before the writ Court, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 8. The writ appeal; therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge