AKTAR HOSSAIN Vs. CESC LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioner is that an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereafter the 'Act') presented by him before the appropriate appellate authority in terms of liberty granted by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30th November, 2016 has not been disposed of as yet and on the contrary, supply of electricity which had been restored upon payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- as directed by the said Bench has since been disconnected.

(2.) The facts giving rise to presentation of the appeal before the said Bench may be noted first.

(3.) Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 126 of the Act. In terms of the provisional assessment that was made by the authorized officer, the petitioner was found liable to make payment of Rs. 10,85,970/-. The provisional assessment was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition [W. P. 17658 (W) of 2016]. The same was considered and disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 8th September, 2016. The learned Judge directed the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a pre-condition for restoration of supply. If such amount were paid, the distribution licensee was directed to immediately restore the supply. A further direction was made for completing the assessment proceeding upon granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This order was carried in appeal, whereon the said Bench observed that having regard to the petitioner's annual consumption, assessment to the effect that the petitioner was liable in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of alleged pilferage seems to be infirm and that the licensee had no right to penalize a citizen. It was also observed that the licensee can only recover the price of the services rendered as laid down in the law. Prima facie satisfied with the case set up by the petitioner, the licensee was directed to restore supply of electricity upon deposit of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- by him without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The said Bench also granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate his dispute before the appropriate appellate authority. Four weeks time was granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, in default whereof the writ appeal itself would stand dismissed. The writ appeal and the connected application, thus, stood disposed of.