Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Jai Maa Kali Oil Mill Thr. Smt. ... vs Mpmkvv Co. Ltd. Gwalior on 11 July, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 11th OF JULY , 2022
WRIT PETITION NO.7320 OF 2022
Between:-
1. M/S JAI MAA KALI OIL MILL,
THROUGH SMT. RAMJANKI
RATHORE (SOLE
PROPRIETORSHIP) R/O - F-3 APNA
GHAR COLONY, SHATABDI
PURAM, DISTRICT GWALIOR,
MADHYA PRADESH.
2. SMT. RAMJANKI RATHORE W/O
SHRI KALICHARAN SINGH
RATHORE, AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE /
BUSINESS R/O- F-3 APNA GHAR
COLONY, SHATABDI PURAM,
DISTRICT GWALIOR, MADHYA
PRADESH.
........PETITIONERS
(BY MS EKTA VYAS - ADVOCATE)
AND
MPMKVV CO. LTD, GWALIOR
THROUGH AE OFFICER (EAST) DD
NAGAR ZONE, DEENDAYAL
NAGAR, GWALIOR, MADHYA
PRADESH 474005.
........RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
None for the respondent, however, the counsel for the petitioner insisted that the matter should be heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. To grant stay against the illegal and arbitrary recovery.
2. To grant payment of appropriate compensation to the petitioner by the defendants for economic losses, psychological agony caused to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner be paid their cost of Litigation from the defendants.
4. Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit, may please be granted to the Petitioner in the interest of justice."
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on 7/1/2020 the premises of Jai Maa Kali Oil Mill owned by the petitioners was searched and preliminary assessment of Rs.3,42,568/- was made on the allegation of theft of electricity. It is submitted that the Panchnama does not bear the signatures of the petitioner no.2 and it is a forged document and the inspection was carried out in absence of the petitioner no.2 or any competent authority of petitioner no.1. It is submitted that the final assessment has not been made and the respondent is compelling the petitioners to deposit the outstanding amount and now it has also disconnected the electricity. It is further submitted that the petitioners had preferred an appeal against the order dated 22/1/2020, but the said appeal was not entertained, as half of the demanded amount was not deposited 3 by the petitioners, however, it is submitted that the petitioners have deposited Rs.40,000/- out of the total demand of Rs.3,42,568/-.
4. In the writ petition, it has been mentioned that although the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, but since the economic status of the petitioners is not good to pay half of the assessed amount, therefore, the appeal was not even registered.
5. It is submitted that the respondent has filed a criminal case of theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Electricity Act, which is still pending and without waiting for the outcome of the same, the respondent is insisting to deposit the entire assessed amount.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. The averments in the writ petition are confusing. As per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, a provisional assessment shall be made and served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. The person, on whom the provisional assessment order has been served, shall be entitled to file objections and the assessing officer after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person shall pass a final order of assessment within 30 days from the date of service of such provisional order. Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, provides for an appeal to the Appellate Authority. This appeal lies against the final order of assessment. In the writ petition, on one hand, the petitioners have claimed that they have filed an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (wrongly mentioned as 126), but at the same time, 4 have not pleaded that whether any final assessment order has been passed or not. However, during the course of arguments, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the final assessment order has been passed. The final assessment order has not been placed on record. Thus, this petition is disposed of with the following terms and conditions:-
(1) If the final assessment order has not been passed so far, then the petitioners shall be free to file objections within a period of 15 days from today (if not already filed) and the Assessing Officer shall pass final assessment order after considering the objections.
(2) If the final assessment order has already been passed, then the petitioners shall be free to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 after complying the pre-requisite of deposit of 50% of the assessment order in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of The Director, Employees State Insurance Health Care and others vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited and others passed on 27.4.2022 in C.A. No.3464/2022. Any provision of law cannot be bypassed merely because it requires pre-
deposit of assessment order and the financial condition of the defaulter cannot be a good ground to bypass a statutory provision, specifically when the petitioner is running an Oil Mill.
8. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
Arun* JUDGE
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2022.07.12 17:07:16 +05'30'