SUDIPTA KOLEY Vs. M. BHOWMICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a consumer of electricity, supplied by the CESC Limited (hereafter the company). An inspection conducted in the premises of the petitioner on October 12, 2018 by certain officers of the company resulted in alleged detection of unauthorized use of electricity by the petitioner. The final order of assessment was passed by the relevant officer under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereafter the 2003 Act) on October 26, 2018. The same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.564 of 2018. A learned Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition on November 27, 2018 with directions which, inter alia, included a direction upon the petitioner to prefer an appeal under section 127 within 7 days of restoration of supply. Supply was restored on December 7, 2018 and hence, an appeal should have been preferred by December 14, 2018. Due to his alleged sickness and December 15 and 16, 2018 being Saturday and Sunday, respectively, the petitioner could file the appeal on December 17, 2018. The appellate authority under section 127 passed an order dated January 30, 2019, whereby she upheld the objection of the company that the appeal was time-barred and rejected the same. Such order of the appellate authority (the first respondent) is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.84 of 2019.

(2.) A learned Judge of this Court was hearing this writ petition. The controversy that emerged for decision therein was, could an appeal under section 127 of the 2003 Act, carried from an order of assessment made under section 126 thereof, be entertained by the appellate authority if the same were presented beyond the period of limitation prescribed in section 127 itself upon condonation of delay in its presentation? Or, in other words, does the appellate authority acting under section 127 have the power to condone the delay in presentation of a time-barred appeal, if sufficient cause therefor were shown?

(3.) Ms. Manju, Agarwalla, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in (i) [Omvati Devi Agarwalla v. CESC Ltd. & Ors., 2015 AIR(Cal) 382], (ii) [Shree Gopal Engineering Works Ltd. v. CESC Ltd., 2002 AIR(Cal) 99], (iii) [Union of India v. Popular Construction, 2001 8 SCC 470], (iv) [Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, 1995 5 SCC 5], and (v) [Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 1987 2 SCC 107], and an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court dated October 18, 2016 in W.P.1674 of 2016 [Rakhee Gupta v. State of Maharashtra], in support of the contention that a time-barred appeal may be entertained by the appellate authority provided sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay.