FIFA INDUSTRIES Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to an inspection conducted at the premises of the industry run by the petitioner wherein the electric connection was provided under LT IV tariff, the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P3 notice and Exts.P4 & P5 bills, making a back assessment on the premise that petitioner ought to have been charged under LT VIIA tariff. Aggrieved by Exts.P3, P4 & P5 the petitioner submitted a complaint before the 3rd respondent, as evident from Ext.P6. But it is stated that the 3rd respondent had refused to entertain the complaint on the basis that the impugned bill is one related to unauthorised consumption coming within the purview of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

(2.) ON a prima facie consideration of Exts.P3, P4 and P5 it is evident that what is demanded is only the difference between the tariffs on the premise that the petitioner ought to have been charged under LT VIIA for the period mentioned therein. Therefore it is evident that there is no imposition of penalty under Section 126 alleging any misuse or unauthorised usage of electricity.

(3.) THE petitioner had filed this writ petition alleging that Ext.P6 complaint was not entertained by the 3rd respondent and the respondents 1 & 2 are proceeding with coercive steps for recovery of the amounts covered under the impugned bills. It is stated that, along with the complaint the petitioner had also sought for an interim relief of staying the collection of the amount under demand, till the disposal of the complaint by the 3rd respondent. Therefore it is only just and proper to direct the 3rd respondent to entertain the complaint and to take a decision regarding maintainability of the same and also to take a decision with respect to granting of interim relief, if the complaint is maintainable.