Disposed

M/S Balji Ice and Chilling Plant v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2020WRIC/13671/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held it cannot make factual inquiries into tariff disputes or electricity bill levies under Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction. It directed the petitioner to seek redress through the Consumer Redressal Grievance Forum or competent statutory authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without any relief granted, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate consumer forum or statutory authority.

M/S Balji Ice and Chilling Plant Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13671 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Balji Ice And Chilling Plant Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi,Shrawan Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Shri Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents is present.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the notice dated 23.6.2020 whereby a sum of Rs.13,03,258/- has been demanded from the petitioner and the electricity connection has been disconnected on 11.6.2020. Further prayer is that the respondents be directed to refund or adjust the excess electricity charge realised from the petitioner for applying wrong tariff of HV-2 instead of LMV-6. The petitioner further demanded compensation for illegal disconnection of the electricity and seeks a mandamus commanding the respondents to restore electricity connection.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice dated 23.6.2020 was issued to the petitioner without any inspection of the premises in question or without providing any show cause notice to explain its stand regarding the change of tariff from LMV-6 to HV-2.

¶8

The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not found correct, inasmuch as, alongwith the counter affidavit, MRI report of the connection in question has been appended to justify change of tariff plan and the notice for realisation of the

¶9

electricity bills. In several paragraphs of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has increased electricity consumption and so demand has been raised after the bills were made.

¶10

Be that as it may, the issue in question requires factual inquiry.

¶11

We are of the considered opinion that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for the Court to make a factual inquiry to entertain the plea of the petitioner disputing the tariff plan and levy of the electricity bills. Appropriate course for the petitioner would be to approach the Consumer Redressal Grievance Forum under Regulation 7.10 of the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2007 or to approach the competent authority under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005.

¶12

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.12.2020 SK

M/S Balji Ice and Chilling Plant v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Balji Ice and Chilling Plant v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rudra Pratap Singh Vs U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and 5 Others

Yogendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Muzammil Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Punita Motwani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S A.K Filling Station Vs Union of India and 3 Others

M/S Satish Kumar and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others