Disposed

K.V.S.N Jyothi, v. Accistent Accounts officer

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2020WP/8152/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demand notice and disconnection order by the Consumer Grievances Forum. The court allowed the petitioner liberty to approach the Vidyut Ombudsman for alternative remedy without adjudicating on the merits of the challenge.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty to approach the Vidyut Ombudsman, Andhra Pradesh within three weeks to consider the matter on merits.

K.V.S.N Jyothi, Vs Accistent Accounts officer — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8152 of 2019

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The petitioner – M/s.Sri Ambika Foods represented by its Proprietrix, filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 25.03.2019, passed in C.G.No.180/2018-19/Vijayawada Circle, by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited, Tirupati – 5^th respondent, and consequently to declare the demand notice, dated 19.12.2017, as illegal and arbitrary. Along with the writ petition, IA.No.1 of 2019 is also filed to stay recovery of the short fall amount, which was sort to be recovered vide notices, dated 25.05.2019 and 11.06.2019.

¶5

This Court, on 28.06.2019, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5, passed an interim order directing the respondents not to disconnect the service connection of the petitioner bearing No.6311400009665, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,18,416, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

¶6

It is admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed along with vacate stay petition that the petitioner has complied with the conditional interim order.

¶7

At the hearing, learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order of the 5^th respondent Forum

¶8

¶9

itself provides alternative remedy to the Vidyut Ombudsman, AP but the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy as provided under the impugned order, approached this Court and hence the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner, having fairly conceded that there is an alternative remedy provided under the impugned order, further submitted that the erroneous dismissal order of the 5^th respondent is challenged before this Court on the ground that it is contrary to law and amounts to non exercise of powers vested in it and, therefore, alternative remedy cannot be a bar to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, without going into the merits of the case.

¶12

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Vidyut Ombudsman, Andhra Pradesh, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said authority is directed to consider the same on its own merits, without reference to any delay, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Interim direction granted by this Court on 28.06.2019 shall continue in operation for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

¶14

Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶15

closed.

¶16

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶17

05.03.2020 KSN/Vjl

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.8152 of 2019

¶21

Date:05.03.2020

¶22

KSN/Vjl

K.V.S.N Jyothi, v. Accistent Accounts officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V.S.N Jyothi, v. Accistent Accounts officer

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

K.Balaji Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

M. Ramana Babu Vs Marella Narasimhulu

Smt. S. Noorjahan Begum, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Vemuladeevi Primary Agricltural Vs the State of Ap

Reddipilli Tatarao, Visakhapatnam. Vs Prl Secy, Energy Dept., Guntur Dist and 2 Ot

G Lakshmi Rajyam Vs the State of Ap