SHILPI PRASAD Vs. TATA STEEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners have questioned the authority of the respondent JUSCO in charging water/municipal charges along with electricity dues leading it to dues of Rs.3,82,223.53/-. According to Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners the dues of electricity is only Rs.1,63,932.64/- and the water charges is Rs.4397.36/- but the municipal charges is Rs.2,07,448.28/- along with the late payment charges which comes to Rs.3,82,223.53/-. According to the petitioners the JUSCO cannot charge water and municipal charges. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel for the respondent JUSCO has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of a forum under the respondent JUSCO which has been constituted for adjudication of such type of dispute. Upon which, Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to approach before the respondent No.4, D.G.M., Customer Relations, JUSCO, Jamshedpur where the petitioners can agitate the issue about the water charges and the municipal charges but he has admitted the liability to make payment of entire electricity bill which comes to Rs.1,63,932.64/- as on 24.09.2019 along with late payment charges of Rs.6445.25/-, total comes to Rs.1,70,377.89/-, since the consumption of electricity is not in dispute.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits on instruction that the petitioners will make payment of charges pertaining to electricity dues and L.P.C. i.e., a sum of Rs.1,70,377.89/- but in the meanwhile the respondent JUSCO may be restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection. Such submission has not been objected by learned senior counsel appearing for the JUSCO. This Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid submission and also considering the fact that the dispute pertaining to applicability of water charges/municipal charges which is to be adjudicated by going across the agreement vis-a-viz the tarrif applicable, as such, this Court refrains itself in exercising the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India rather it would be just, proper and appropriate to give liberty to the petitioners to approach before the respondent No.4 by agitating these issues for taking such decision in accordance with law. In view thereof, prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition is allowed according liberty to the petitioners to approach before the respondent No.4 agitating the grievance by making a representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The concerned respondent shall pass an order after providing an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Needless to say that the respondent No.4 shall pass a speaking order strictly in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any of the observation made in this order.

(3.) As has been submitted by Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners about restraining the respondents in disconnecting the electricity line since all the petitioners are residing in the flats and for that they are ready to make payment of entire electricity dues pertaining to Rs.1,70,377.89/-, therefore, this Court is of the view that in the ends of justice, the order of restrainment in this regard is required to be passed.