GOPINATHJIDEV TEMPLE TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the recovery notices issued by the respondents.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Dave, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the recovery notices are issued to the petitioner for recovery of the amounts beyond the period of limitation as the same is for the period between September, 2011 to November, 2016. He has submitted that any dues for recovery of dues prior to the period of limitation cannot be recovered. He has further submitted that the recovery notices issued by the respondents is without hearing the petitioner.

(3.) At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Bhaya, appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy provided under Sec. 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act"). She has placed reliance on the judgment dtd. 27/6/2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.9655 of 2022 and has submitted that this Court after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commissions Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd., and others, [2007 (8) SCC 381], has dismissed, the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.