Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37976 of 2018 Petitioner :- Abdul Qadir And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bidhan Chandra Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs;
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to provide the benefit of supply of electricity to the petitioners on flat rate and accept the payment of electricity charge at flat rate as per G.O. dated 14-06-2006 read with order dated 11-07-2007 and rate schedule LMV-6 notified from time to time;
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to restore electricity supply of the petitioners without insisting the petitioners to deposit difference of subsidy amount:"
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that by order dated 14.6.2006, the State Government has granted approval for supply of electricity to power loom bunkers on flat rate as extended to farmers in terms of G.O. dated 14.6.2006. The UPPCL issued a letter dated 20.6.2006 informing to all the distribution licensees to implement the aforesaid G.O. On 11.7.2018 UPERC passed an order in which it had prescribed the rate for LMV-2 and LMV-6 consumers.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was covered under Rate Schedule LMV-6, which makes a provision for supply of electricity to power looms on flat rate in accordance with the Government Order dated 14.06.2006 and the order passed by U.P. Electricity Regulation Commission dated 11.07.2006. It is further submitted that this benefit of subsidy extended to the petitioner, all of a sudden, has been cancelled on the ground that their connection is not covered by the provisions of respite scheme which was issued basically for the purposes of encouraging development of power loom sectors. He further submitted that there electricity connection has been disconnected merely on the ground that the petitioners were using motors/machines concerned having more than one horse power.
According to Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Electricity Department the government order is not applicable to the petitioners since the benefit of the said scheme is extended to only those persons who were using the motor/machine of less than one horse power. He further stated that during spot inspection, it was found that the petitioners were using motor/machines of more than one horse power, as such, disconnection of electricity supply of the petitioners was rightly done.
Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners rebutted the contention of the learned counsel for the Electricity Department and stated that there is no restriction in government order dated 14.6.2006 of power consumption of more than one horse power by using additional motor/machine for running power looms and submitted that the petitioners are fully entitled to the benefit of the said scheme issued under the said Government Order. In support of his contention, he has referred to the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the State Government in the matter of other persons who had filed their representation before the authorities concerned.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Be that as it may, the issue is one, which requires investigation into the questions of fact and, thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit and interest of justice would stand served, in case, a fact finding authority shall look into the grievance of the petitioner initially.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation raising their grievances annexing therewith all supporting documents as well as a copy of the writ petition and its annexures before respondent no. 1, with the further direction to the said authority to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the policy of the State Government after giving opportunity of hearing to the Respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of making of the representation.
We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the claim being made by the petitioners and the same shall be decided by the authority concerned on its own merits.
It is open for the petitioners to approach the Respondent No. 3 for restoring the electric supply to their power looms within ten days from today. In case such an application is filed by the petitioners, the same may be considered in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 vinay