Laxmi Chandra Kundnani, Aged about 47 years, S/o Mr. Anand Kumar Kundnani, M/S Sheela Bakery, Shed No. -II, Industrial Area, Adhartal, Jabalpur , Jabalpur , (Madhya Pradesh), R/o Shanti Nagar, Damoh Naka, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), BSNL – 94253-87838

BY THE REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE

To,

1.   Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd.,

Through The Managing Director,

Shakti Bhawan, PO: Vidyut Nagar, Rampur,

Jabalpur - 482008 (Madhya Pradesh) India.

2.   Executive Engineer, (North Division),
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd.,

Adhartal , Jabalpur - 482004, Madhya Pradesh

3.   Executive Engineer, (Enforcement),

Flying Squad No. 1,

Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd.,

Shakti Bhawan Rampur, Jabalpur- 482008, (Madhya Pradesh)

4.   Assistant Engineer,

Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd.,

Adhartal, Jabalpur- 482004, (Madhya Pradesh) 

Subject : Refund of an amount of Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with interest illegally recovered under the provision of  Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Reference : (1) Order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the matter of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NORTH DIVISION) Vs PRESIDING OFFICER, in the file of Writ Petition No.8191 of 2016 and (2) Order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Sir(s),

Under instruction from my client Mr. Laxmi Chandra Kundnani, Aged about 47 years, S/o Mr. Anand Kumar Kundnani, M/S Sheela Bakery, Shed No. -II, Industrial Area, Adhartal, Jabalpur , Jabalpur , (Madhya Pradesh), R/o Shanti Nagar, Damoh Naka, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), BSNL – 94253-87838, I serve you with this notice as under :

1.   You noticee No. 2 to 4 had Challenged in the above petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was to an order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Appellate Authority were in seisin with an appeal preferred by my client against recovery/assessment order dated 19.05.2015; whereby, my client was called upon to pay Rs.3,20,276/-. The Appellate Authority as was evident from the order has interfered with the demand on the ground that joint demand has been raised by clubbing the Electricity consumption of two different service meters viz., Service No.3-93- 699147 and 3-93-209053. Apparent it is from the facts on record that there exists two factories viz., M/s Sheela Bakery and M/s Asian Bakery in one premises having two separate service meters viz.,3-93-699147 and 3-93-209053. Though on 24.09.2012 and 04.06.2013 a spot inspection of the premises was carried out. In the first spot inspection dated 24.09.2012 assessment of Rs.63,470/- against M/s Sheela Bakery was made against which my client deposited an amount of Rs.31735/-. The said assessment order was assailed by my client but was negatived by order dated 22.02.2013 on the ground that the appeal is premature. That on 04.06.2013 second spot inspection was carried out of both the units viz., M/s Sheela Bakery having a load of 20 horsepower and M/s Asian Bakery having a load of 25 horsepower. A joint assessment was made and an amount of Rs.6,20,840/- was directed to be recovered. After the correction, final recovery order of Rs.3,20,276/- was issued on 19.05.2015. Evidently, it was a joint demand order made on the basis of the assessment dated 04.06.2013, was issued. In an appeal preferred by respondent No.2, the Appellate Authority found that since no case under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been made out by the you noticee No. 2 to 4 and a demand was raised by combining loads of both the units, allowed the appeal.

2.   Section 126 of the Act of 2003 envisages that if on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. It however stipulates that after taking steps as contemplated under sub-section (2) (3) and (4) of Section 126 if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unathorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place. In the case at hand evidently there is no conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer as to unauthorized use of electricity. The Concerning Authority had after carrying out spot inspection of the premises clubbed the consumption of electricity by two different units and has raised a joint demand. Since there is no finding as to unauthorized use of electricity the Appellate Authority in the considered opinion of this Court was well within its jurisdiction to hold that the proceedings cannot be said to be under Section 126 of the Act of 2003 and since the proceedings were not under Section 126 of the Act of 2003, the you noticee No. 2 to 4 were not justified in effecting the recovery by taking into consideration the assessment of joint load. The impugned order when tested on the anvil of the provisions contained under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be faulted with as would warrant any interference. Petition therefore failed.

3.   My client raised a voice by demanding the refund of amount illegally recovered by you noticee No. 2 to 4 vide his representation dated 13.10.2016 and further through a reminder dated 18.11.2016 but you noticee did not bother to hear his pain and sufferings.

4.   You noticees are therefore called upon to kindly  Refund of an amount of Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with interest illegally recovered under the provision of  Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. For the pain and suffering and so also cost of litigations from pillar to post you noticees are also liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of 15 days from the date receipt of this notice, failing which my client would have no option but to knocks the doors of Courts of Law at your cost and expenses.

Please take notice and act accordingly and fail not.

PLACE : JABALPUR                                      Yours faithfully,

DATED : 08.02.2017                            [VIJAY RAGHAV SINGH]

ADVOCATE