Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5) The respondents filed an interlocutory application for vacating the interim order dated 11.04.2019. However, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 07.05.2019, dismissed the said I.A.(C) No. 1445/2019 [in W.P.(C) No. 2608/2019], by holding that no case was made out for vacating the stay. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing both sides and after considering the materials available on record as well as the cases cited at the Bar, dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellant is having an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, so far the same relates to the impugned assessment more particularly, when the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission has already notified in the Code and in terms of the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2005, adopting the procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, so far, the same relates to assessment of charges pending determination by the Special Court Page No.# 5/15 exercising its power under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, it was provided that the determination made herein shall not influence the authorities on the merit of the inspection report and the assessment made thereof.

18) In the case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court of India had held in clear terms in paragraph 9 thereof that it is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the Apex Court on the ground that the Supreme Court had laid down the legal position without considering any other point.

19) Accordingly, as the learned Single Judge, having considered the decision of this Court in the case of (i) Shiv Alloys Steel (supra), (ii) M/s. Shiv Alloys Steel (supra) (Division Bench), (iii) Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra), and (iv) Orion Metal Private Limited & Anr. (supra) , had arrived at a decision in paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment and order that the assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and prosecution under Section 135 are not mutually exclusive but complementary and that Section 126 imposes civil liability while Section 135 addresses parallel consequences and that both proceedings can run concurrently, is found to be on sound legal footing. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment that the determination made in the case of Orion Metal Private Limited & Anr. (supra), is conclusive in nature is also found to be on sound legal footing. The learned Single Judge has applied correct principles of law in placing reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Shiv Alloys Steel (supra), which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Shiv Alloys Steel (supra), wherein it was held that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is a specific alternative remedy by way of appeal under Page No.# 14/15 Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge had held that the appellant is having an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, so far the same relates to the impugned assessment more particularly, when the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission has already notified in the Code and in terms of the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2005, adopting the procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, so far, the same relates to assessment of charges pending determination by the Special Court exercising its power under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003.