Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jyotish Chandra Bhattacharya vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 10 April, 2017
1 10.04.2017
.
Item No. 33W.P. 10378(W) of 2017 Jyotish Chandra Bhattacharya Vs. State of West Bengal and others.
Mr. Rabilal Maitra, Mr. Rajitlal Maitra.
... for the petitioner.
The affidavit of service filed in Court today is kept on record. Despite service there is no representation on behalf of the State as well as the Distribution Company.
Ms. Shampa Sarkar, learned advocate, who normally appears on behalf of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, is requested to appear in the matter. Let her appointment be regularized. A copy of the writ petition is served upon her by the petitioner in Court today.
The petitioner was enjoying electricity for running the poultry farm since 19th October 2015. The bills were raised from time to time showing the consumption of electricity and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was depositing the same regularly.
However, the Distribution Company found the petitioner to have extracted electricity unauthorizedly and illegally and disconnected the supply of electricity, which the petitioner was enjoying from the meter installed in his name. A provisional assessment bill was raised upon the petitioner showing consumption, which the petitioner actually has been benefited and invited the petitioner to raise objection. After the consideration of the objection, a final assessment order is passed and subsequently 2 a demand to the tune of Rs. 6,19,977/- is also raised upon the petitioner.
It is no longer res integra that the final assessment order is amenable to be challenged before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. This Court may not have entertained the writ petition if the petitioner intend to challenge the final assessment order as he has efficacious alternative remedy provided under the statute. However, the petitioner says that he does not want to challenge the final assessment order and intended to liquidate the finally assessed amount in installment.
There is no dispute that a sum of Rs. 6,19,977/- is found payable by the petitioner on account of the alleged theft and pilferage. The equity demands when the petitioner showed his intention to liquidate the legitimate dues of the Distribution Company, such amount may be allowed to be paid in installments.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid outstanding in six equal monthly installments. First of such installment shall be paid on or before 17th April 2017 and all subsequent installments shall be paid on or before 10th day of month for which it becomes due.
After giving half of the total amount finally assessed by the Distribution Company, it is open to the petitioner to apply for reconnection and if such application is made and the Distribution Company finds the said application in order, the supply shall be restored to the petitioner within seventy two hours therefrom provided the petitioner pays the other charges including the reconnection charges.
In default of payment of any one installment within the time indicated herein above, liberty is granted to the Distribution Company to disconnect the supply of electricity of the petitioner without any reference or notice to be issued in this regard.
3In addition to the same, the petitioner shall go on making payment of electricity charges for the units so consumed after reconnection within the time that may be indicated in the bill to be raised in this regard and default of such payment may also attract the same consequences as that of the default in payment of installment.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
ab (Harish Tandon, J.)