Between:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31714 of 2014 Dated: 21.10.2014 M/s. Mahalakshmi Smelters, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Mr. S.Mahadevan and another. .. Petitioners And Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Operation Circle, Vizianagaram District, and another. .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Joseph for Mr. C.Sumon Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P.Anand Seshu (SC for EPDCL) This Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter No.SE/O/VZM/SAO/JAO/HT/F.DKT/SF/D.No.30/2014, dated 18.08.2014, of respondent No.2, whereby he has levied deemed consumption charges for the year 2013-14 in respect of service connection bearing No.HT.SC.No.VZM-230 of petitioner No.1.
I have heard Mr.Joseph, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr.P.Anand Seshu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners have assailed the impugned demand mainly on the ground that during the relevant period, there were both scheduled and unscheduled power cuts, as a result of which they could not avail the maximum demand at the minimum required level and that, therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the respondents to levy deemed consumption charges. The further grievance of the petitioners is that though a detailed representation was made on 01.09.2014 on receipt of the impugned demand letter, respondent No.2 has not re-considered his decision.
Under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’), a consumer can approach the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers constituted by the Distribution Licensee for redressal of his grievances. Under sub-section (6) thereof, the consumer can avail the further remedy of approaching the Ombudsman, if he feels aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the Grievance Redressal Forum under sub-section (5).
In my opinion, as the issues raised by the petitioners basically fall within the realm of verifiable facts, the remedies created under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 42 of the Act are more appropriate and the petitioners can approach the Court in the event they feel aggrieved by the decision taken by the said Forum.
Mr. Joseph, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has, however, expressed apprehension that in the absence of an express power conferred on the said Forum to afford interim protection to the petitioners, the respondents may disconnect the power supply before the said Forum adjudicates the dispute.
In the light of the above-mentioned facts and the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel, it would be appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition in the following terms:
(1) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the petitioners shall make an application before the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers constituted under sub- section (5) of Section 42 of the Act;
(2) the Forum shall decide the disputes raised by the petitioners, after notice to both parties; and
(3) till adjudication of dispute by the Forum, the power supply shall not be disconnected to the petitioners’ service connection for non- payment of the disputed amount. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners shall pay normal consumption charges.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.39638 of 2014 filed for interim relief stands disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 21.10.2014 v v