W-^iKT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.ONo. 7459 of 2007 Petitioner M/s Manmeet tspat Private Limited Through Director Shri Rajendra Agrawal, S/o Late Motilal Agrawal, aged about 42 years, R/o Nandlni Road, Bhilai, District Durg C.G.). Versus Respondents 1. The ChhatUsgarh Stats Electriciiy Board, Through Chairman C.S.E.B., Raipur, DistrictRaipur(C.G.). 2. Chief Engineer, C.S.E.B. (CommercfaO, 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, Dlstrict Durg (C.G.) 6. Ex. Engineer (0), O/o C.E. (R.R.) C.S.E.B., Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench : Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Virendra Sharma, Advocate with Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri /tehutosh Singh Gaharwar, Advocate for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 7<h day ofFebruaiy, 2008) 1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the terminaUon of the H.T. agreement dated 23.2.20)5 (Annexure P/1), vide ordsr dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P/13), disconnection of the energy supply, recovery of Rs.1,09,63,662/- and further for reftind of security deposit of Rs. 63,77,000/-, has fited ftis petition. °T 'y^ 2. !n exerdse of the powers under clause (a) and (c) of sub- secGon (2) of Secfion 181 read wtft sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act 2003') the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Consumers and Establishmentof Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Reguiations, 2<X)4 (for short 'the Reguiations 2004') have been made. 3. Regulation 22 provides for filing of complaint before Forum and as per Regulation 23 a complaint may be fiied by- (a)any consumer who is not satisfied with solution offered by the licensee through the procedure prescribed in Chapter 2 (IGRM) of these regutations; or (b) HT consumers who dispute thelr bilts or any part thereof and the disputed amount is more than Rs. 20,(XX)/-, excluding cases where the disputed amount is due to arithmetteal or clerica! errors; or (c) LT consumers who dispute their bills or any part thereof and fiie disputed amount is more than Rs. 2QOQQI-, exctuding cases where the disputed amount is due to arithmetica! or cierical errors. 4. Thereafter, under Regutation 43 appeal lies to the Ombudsman against the order passed by the Forum. The grievance of fte petitioner, as stated above comes within tfte four comers of the grievances for Redressal undsr the forum. as prescribed under ttie provisionsof Regulation 22. 5. !n view of that, since the effective, efficacious and statutoiy provision for filing a complaint and thereafter filing of appsa! 13 availabte, this petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, firstly, on the ground that no extra ;-^iS"aiir---sa..a.: ss^t. .ry~'.. '.'^'^^ ^" ^^'^. "^ f fe.2 1•Sk 'WK'Si "a "X,. ^" ^' l^^/: ordinary situaBon is available and secondly, disputed quesfions of facte are involved In this petition. 6. Thus the petition fe dismissed, summarily. However, liberty Is resen/ed to ttie petitfoner to take recourse to the statutory forum that may be availabte under ttie provisions of ttieRegutations, 2004. The limitafion, if any, shall be counted from the date of passing ofthis order. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge s^S^N^^ft^^*^