Gauhati High Court
M/S Shree Shyam Steel vs Assam Power Distribution Company ... on 12 February, 2021
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010022482021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/863/2021
M/S SHREE SHYAM STEEL
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGD. UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP
ACT, 1932 HAVING PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AND OFFICE AT ESS
ESS COMPLEX, S.J. ROAD, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI-781001 AND AN
INDUSTRIAL UNIT AT SAWKUCHI, KALAPAHAR, GUWAHATI-34, DIST.
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS
A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING DOLY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN
BAZAR, GUWAHATI-01, DULY REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM NANAGING
DIRECTOR.
2:THE AREA MANAGER
IRCA-1
APDCL (LAR)
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTAN BAZAR
GHY.-01.
3:THE ASSTT. GEN. MANAGER
T AND C DIVISION
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-07
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 12-02-2021 Heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Z. Islam, learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
Being inter-alia aggrieved by the assessment order and final assessment bill for an amount of Rs. 1,09,24,507/-, both dated 01-02-2021, raised by the APDCL authorities by levelling the charge of theft of electricity against the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Dr. Saraf submits that the materials available on record would clearly show that this is not a case of theft of electricity. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents have raised the provisional assessment bill and has also disconnected the power supply to the petitioner's industrial unit on 14-12-2020, as a result of which, the industry of the petitioner has came to the a stand still. Urging that due to the pandemic situation arising of the outbreak of Covid-19, the industrial unit of the writ petitioner has already suffered serious setback and now, due to the arbitrary action of the APDCL authorities, the industrial unit of the petitioner has been plunged into serious crisis, Dr. Saraf has prayed for an interim order directing the respondents to restore the electricity to the petitioner's industrial unit and maintain power supply, until such time, the writ petition is finally decided by this Court. Opposing the said prayer, Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. D. Thousen, Page No.# 3/4 learned standing counsel, APDCL submits that this writ petition is not maintainable in law due to availability of alternative remedy, since there is a provision permitting the petitioner to approach the Special Court. Mr. Das further submits that no interim order be granted unless 50% of the amount involved in the provisional assessment bill is deposited by the writ petitioner.
I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both parties. It appears that the contentious issues raised in the writ petition would call for further examination by this Court.
Issue notice returnable on 22-03-2021.
Since Mr. Thousen has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents, no formal notice is required to be sent in this case.
Extra copies of the writ petition be furnished to the learned departmental counsel. Heard on the prayer of interim relief.
The said prayer will be considered on the returnable date. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the situation arising after the outbreak of the pandemic and balancing the equities, I am of the view that some interim relief should be granted to the petitioner so as to avoid further complicacy in the matter. As such, respondents are directed to restore the electricity connection to the petitioner's industrial unit, subject to deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs), within a week from today.
Restoration of electricity should take place within 24 hours from the receipt of the Page No.# 4/4 deposit, as directed by this Court. The deposit made by the petitioner shall, however, be subject to further order that may be passed in this writ petition. It is also made clear that this order shall not come in the way of respondent APDCL realizing bills pertaining to regular energy consumption of the petitioner's unit, as per the meter reading.
JUDGE GS Comparing Assistant