The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to disconnect the electric connection of the petitioner bearing consumer No. 21647.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent rehear the petitioner in Ext. P6 appeal and to pass appropriate orders.
iii. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P3 final assessment order and to quash the original of the same.
iv. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and P4(a) final assessment bills passed and to quash the original of the same.
v. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit P10 notice and to quash the original of the same.
vi. Issue such other writ, order or direction this Honourable Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the petitioner is that there was a surprise inspection by the APTS team in the premises of the petitioner on 13.03.2014, as disclosed from Ext. P1 mahazar, followed by Exts. P2/P2(a) notices. The petitioner was then served with Ext. P3 order dated 31.03.2014 and consequential demands, mulcting huge liability upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred Ext. P6 appeal before the second respondent, upon which, Ext. P7 notice of hearing was issued, directing the petitioner to appear before the concerned authority on 26.05.2014. Though the petitioner appeared, 'hearing' did not take place and the same was adjourned 'sine die'. Nothing was heard thereafter. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 application dated 11.06.2014 under the Right To Information Act, when the petitioner was let known vide Ext. P9, that the appeal was already dismissed on 17.06.2014 i.e. after filing Ext. P8 application. The petitioner has now been served with Ext. P10 communication dated 17.05.2014 issued by the first respondent, pointing out that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and that the remedy of the petitioner was to pursue the matter before the CGRF, if aggrieved. Regret is also expressed in Ext. P10 with regard to mentioning of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kalpetta as the authority to report complaint, if any, in the bill, stating that the competent authority to prefer appeal, if at all any grievance, is the Deputy Chief Engineer, CGRF, Kozhikkode.
3. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents as well, who submits that, it was by virtue of an inadvertent mistake that the petitioner was given an impression that the remedy against Ext. P3 was by way of appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kalpetta. As a matter fact, no penalty was imposed upon the petitioner pursuant to the inspection, but for issuing necessary bill for short remittance. This being the position, it is open for the petitioner to have approached the CGRF - Kozhikkode, it at all any grievance is there.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a Bar, by virtue of the relevant Regulations, which however need not be gone into by this Court in view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel, that the petitioner could very well file necessary proceedings before the CGRF, upon which, the same will be caused to be considered on merits.
5. In th said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, setting the petitioner at liberty to approach the Deputy Chief Engineer, CGRF, if aggrieved of Ext. P3 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any proceedings is filed by the petitioner as above, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months thereafter. The coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The amount already satisfied by the petitioner to an extent of 50 % of the liability in terms of Section 127 of the Act, shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the CGRF as above. If liability is sustained, it is open for the respondent to proceed with further steps to realize the balance amount and if interfered, steps shall be taken to cause refund of the due amount.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)