Disposed

Abdul Sukkur Choudhury v. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Mar 2024CRP(IO)/94/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electricity-billing dispute before Gauhati High Court via two revision petitions challenging appellate orders fixing payable amounts in instalments. The Court found no infirmity warranting Article 227 interference, noted the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum as an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act, granted 30 days' protection from disconnection with liberty to

What did the court decide?

No disconnection of electricity for 30 days; liberty to withdraw suit and approach Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

Abdul Sukkur Choudhury Vs Assam Power Distribution… — Consumer Protection | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010047622024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(IO)/94/2024

¶5

ABDUL SUKKUR CHOUDHURY

¶6

S/O- LATE ABDUR ROHIM CHOUDHURY, VILL.- BOTORASHI, P.O. TILLABAZAR, P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788709.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, APDCL., BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR, GHY-781008.

¶9

2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶10

BADARPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL CAR BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710.

¶11

3:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

¶12

KARIMGANJ ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL CAR KARIMGANJ P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710.

¶13

4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

¶14

KARIMGANJ ELECTRICAL SUB- DIVISION APDCL

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

CAR KARIMGANJ P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

¶19

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/95/2024

¶20

ABDUL SUKKUR CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE ABDUR ROHIM CHOUDHURY VILL.- BOTORASHI P.O. TILLABAZAR P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788709.

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN APDCL. BIJULI BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GHY-781008.

¶23

2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶24

BADARPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL CAR BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 3:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

¶25

KARIMGANJ ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL CAR KARIMGANJ

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

¶28

KARIMGANJ ELECTRICAL SUB- DIVISION APDCL CAR KARIMGANJ P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. -----------Advocate for : MS. R CHOUDHURY Advocate for : SC APDCL appearing for ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION AND 3 ORS

¶29

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶30

ORDER

¶31

06.03.2024

¶32

Heard Ms. R Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R Bora, the learned standing counsel for the APDCL.

¶33

Both the revision petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

¶34

The instant petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution have been filed challenging the orders dated 23.02.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No.21/2022 and Misc. Appeal No.25/2022. From a perusal of the impugned orders, it reveals that though in the suit, the dispute arose in respect of an amount of Rs.94,708/-

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

pertaining to the bill dated 04.08.2021 for the period from 02.02.2010 to 01.08.2021, but the learned 1^st appellate court while adjudicating the said appeal had directed the APDCL authorities to submit the electricity bill from June 2018 to the present date and it was found that the petitioner herein, who was the appellant in Misc. Appeal No.21/2022 was liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,82,140/- which includes the bills of the disputed period as well as prior to June 2018. Under such circumstances, the learned appellate court taking into account that there was no dispute of an amount of Rs.1,44,520/- directed the petitioner who was the appellant therein to pay the said amount in installment per month at Rs.15000/- along with the current demand of the bill. Further to that, at the request of the petitioner/appellant for replacing the electric meter, the respondent APDCL was directed to take necessary steps for replacing the electric meter of the appellant. This Court upon perusal of the impugned order is of the opinion that there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned orders for which the same do not require any interference from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶37

In addition to the above, this Court finds it relevant to note the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which categorically mandates that where equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceedings except in case of breach of trust, no injunction should be granted. This Court has duly taken note of the submission of Mr. R Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the APDCL who submits that there is a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, wherein the petitioner ought to have agitated instead of filing the suit which gives an equally efficacious remedy. Taking into account the above, this Court further is not inclined to interfere with

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

the orders dated 23.02.2024.

¶40

Taking into account the above, this Court directs that for a period of 30 days from today, the APDCL shall not disconnect the electricity connection of the petitioner. The petitioner is given the liberty to withdraw the entire suit proceedings in the meantime and approach the said forum, if so aggrieved with the amount. It is further observed that if the petitioner approaches the said Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the APDCL, the rights and liabilities of the petitioner would be subject to such orders as may be passed by the said Forum and not the orders which have been impugned in the instant proceedings or the suit proceedings. For the sake of clarity, it is observed that the liberty to approach the said Forum is only given subject to withdrawal of the suit proceedings.

¶41

With the above, both the revision petitions stand disposed.

¶42

Comparing Assistant

¶43

JUDGE

Abdul Sukkur Choudhury v. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Sukkur Choudhury v. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 3 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

Amala Barman Vs Narayan Barman

On the Death of Shri Puran Nath His Legal Heirs Smti Saiba Devi and Ors. Vs Ikram Hussain and Ors.

On the Death of Shri Puran Nath His Legal Heirs Smti Saiba Devi and Ors. Vs Ikram Hussain and Ors.

Md. Hussan Ali @ Hasan Ali and Anr. Vs on the Death of Md. Hamir Ali His Legal Heirs, Tomjida Bewa and 6 Ors.

Suchitra Baul Vs Samar Kanti Baul

Abdul Sukkur Choudhury Vs Assam Power Distribution and 3 Ors.