Disposed

M/S. Synpack Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Mar 2023WP(C)/860/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging electricity billing assessments on technical grounds. The Court held that Section 127 of the 2003 Rules provides an exhaustive remedy via appeal. Petitioners were granted liberty to file appeals within 30 days without fresh security deposit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file appeals before the Appellate Authority within 30 days; no fresh deposit required.

M/S. Synpack Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of… — Banking and Recovery | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010029712019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/955/2019

¶5

M/S. BLUEBERRY INDUSTRY

¶6

A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VILLAGETATIMARA, CHANDRAPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NAMELY SRI KAMAL DEKA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF KANAK CHANDRA DEKA, RESIDENT OF LAKSHMI NAGAR, NEAR PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, GUWAHATI - 781005, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AND 8 ORS. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN - 781001.

¶9

2:THE CHAIRMAN

¶10

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN

¶11

PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN - 781001.

¶12

3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶13

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN

¶14

PALTAN BAZAR

¶15

Page No.# 2/9

¶16

GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN - 781001.

¶17

4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D)

¶18

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN

¶19

PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN - 781001.

¶20

5:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TI)

¶21

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. A HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN

¶22

PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN - 781001.

¶23

6:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (TI)

¶24

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN

¶25

PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN - 781001.

¶26

7:THE DEPUTY MANAGER (TI)

¶27

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN

¶28

PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN - 781001.

¶29

Page No.# 3/9

¶30

8:THE AREA MANAGER INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-I

¶31

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN

¶32

PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN - 781001.

¶33

9:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ENGINEER

¶34

APDCL (LAR) BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21

¶35

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A D CHOUDHURY

¶36

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

¶37

WP(C)/860/2019

¶38

M/S. SYNPACK FINANCE PVT. LTD AND ANR. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI SANJAY KUMAR CHHABRA HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT OHIO SHOPPING MALL COMPLEX SITUATED AT 2ND FLOOR MG ROAD GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001

¶39

2: SANJAY KUMAR CHHABRA DIRECTOR OF M/S SYNPACK FINANCE PVT LIMITED S/O- SRI DHAN KUMAR JAIN R/O- 4TH FLOOR ICICI BANK BUILDING OHIO SHOPPING MALL COMPLEX MG ROAD FANCY BAZAR DIST- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI- 781001

¶40

Page No.# 4/9

¶41

VERSUS

¶42

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF POWER (E) HAVING HIS OFFICE AT STATE SECRETARIAT CAPITAL COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781006 2:THE APDCL REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 3:THE CHAIRMAN APDCL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APDCL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 5:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER(D) APDCL(LOWER ASSAM REGION) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 6:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(TI) APDCL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR

¶43

Page No.# 5/9

¶44

BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 7:THE ASSTT GM(TI) APDCL(LOWER ASSAM REGION) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 8:THE DEPUTY MANAGER (TI) APDCL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 9:THE AREA MANAGER INDUSTRIAL REVENUE COLLECTION AREA-I APDCL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 10:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ ENGINEER ULUBARI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION APDCL(LOWER ASSAM DIVISION) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001 11:THE ASSAM ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ASEB CAMPUS DWARANDHAR GS ROAD SIXMILE GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M)

¶45

Page No.# 6/9

¶46

ASSAM PIN- 781022

¶47

-----------Advocate for : MR. H. BURAGOHAIN Advocate for : SC APDCL appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS

¶48

BEFORE

¶49

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶50

ORDER

¶51

14.03.2023

¶52

Heard Shri S Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/955/2019 and Shri H Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/860/2019. Also heard Shri KP Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL).

¶53

2. On a broad consensus arrived at by the parties in the Bar, both these writ petitions are being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶54

3. At the outset, it is, however, made clear that the disposal is on a technical ground and without touching the inter-se merits of the dispute.

¶55

4. The petitioner in WP(C)/955/2019 is running a processing and packaging unit of perishable items, like milk and milk products. It has challenged an order dated 02.02.2019 whereby a provisional assessment order dated 18.12.2018 for an amount of Rs. 16,52,486.65, as penalty, was confirmed and the same was demanded from the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner had unauthorizedly consumed electricity beyond the sanctioned load capacity of 338 KW.

¶56

Page No.# 7/9

¶57

5. The petitioner no. 1 in WP(C)/860/2019 is a private limited Company along with one of its Director as the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. 1-Company deals with constructions and maintenance of Shopping Malls. Likewise the petitioner in the first writ petition i.e., WP(C)/955/2019, the petitioners herein have put to challenge a speaking order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the APDCL pursuant to a remand by this Court in WP(C)/8712/2018 vide order dated 19.12.2018. By the speaking order, the representation of the petitioners was rejected which was filed against the assessment for an amount of Rs.19,96,854.98.

¶58

6. Shri Deka, learned counsel as well as Shri Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that there is a jurisdictional error in making the assessment by which the relevant factors have been ignored and overlooked and the assessment has been made on extraneous and irrelevant factors. The learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that the assessment has been made on a wrong premise which based on standby machines which could not have been used simultaneously with the machine ordinarily used.

¶59

7. On the other hand, Shri Pathak, learned Standing Counsel has disputed the aforesaid proposition and has submitted that the assessment has been done by fully adhering to the Rules and Regulations. The learned Standing Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 127 of the Act of 2003 which provides for an appeal in case of grievance against an assessment order. He further submits that all the aforesaid points and grounds raised in this writ petition can very well be taken into consideration by the aforesaid authority, including the jurisdictional issue.

¶60

8. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners have responded by contending that if the Appellate Authority independently reconsiders the matter by giving proper

¶61

Page No.# 8/9

¶62

opportunity, including personal hearing, the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel may be accepted wherein the petitioners would prefer their appeals. However, the petitioners have expressed a predicament that in these cases, the requirement of statutory deposit was relaxed to the extent of 25% which the petitioners have done. The fact of deposit has also been endorsed by Shri Pathak, learned Standing Counsel.

¶63

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and the agreement reached between the parties, instead of entering into the merits of the dispute, this Court is of the opinion that Section 127 of the Act of 2003 lays down an exhaustive form for redressal of its grievance in the form of an appeal.

¶64

10. In that view of the matter, both the writ petitions stand closed by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from today.

¶65

11. It is, however made clear that since the deposit, as directed by his Court, was made earlier, no fresh deposit would be insisted upon the petitioners at the time of filing of the appeal. However, at the time of its admission, the petitioners shall pray for further exemption in which case, the said prayer would be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. It is further provided that if the appeal, as directed above, is preferred within this period of 30 days, the same shall be taken up for consideration and disposed of expeditiously and preferably within a period of 90 days from such date of receipt.

¶66

12. The Appellate Authority shall also give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing so as to enable the petitioners to present their cases without any prejudice.

¶67

Page No.# 9/9

¶68

13. The writ petitions are, accordingly disposed of.

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

Comparing Assistant

M/S. Synpack Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Synpack Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

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

Pratati Mahanta and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Hafizun Nessa Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Abdul Hamid and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Necem Cements Limited Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Pub-Guwahati Junior College and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S. Blueberry Industry Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 8 Ors.