IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
CAUSE
TITLE
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
DECLARATION
(Under Rule 25
of Chapter X)
The copies as required by Rule 25 of Chapter X of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh Rules, 2008, have served upon Clerk of
office of the Advocate General for Madhya Pradesh at PM on 2017
in Jabalpur.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017 (O)
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
&
Ors.
I
N D E X
|
S. No.
|
Description of documents
|
Annexure
|
Pages
|
|
1.
|
DECLARATION (Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)
|
|
1
|
|
2.
|
Index
|
|
2
|
|
3.
|
Chronology of Events
|
|
3 TO 5
|
|
4.
|
Memo of writ petition with
affidavit
|
|
6 TO 21
|
|
5.
|
List of documents.
|
|
22
|
|
6.
|
Copy of petitioner deposited
an amount of Rs.31,735/- dated 24.12.2012
|
P-1
|
23
|
|
7.
|
Copy of petitioner deposited
an amount of Rs.1,60,138/- Vide Receipt dated 24.06.2015
|
P-2
|
24
|
|
8.
|
Copy of the Order dated 17.03.2016
|
P-3
|
25 TO 27
|
|
9.
|
Copy of the Order dated 25.07.2016
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradessh, 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
|
P-4
|
28 TO
30
|
|
10.
|
Copy of the Representation
dated 13.10.2016
|
P-5
|
31
& 32
|
|
11.
|
Copy of the
reminder dated 18.11.2016
|
P-6
|
33
|
|
12.
|
Copy of the representation dated
21.04.2016
|
P-7
|
34
& 35
|
|
13.
|
Copy of the Legal Notice dated
08.02.2017
|
P-8
|
36 TO
42
|
|
14.
|
Copy of the representation
dated 01.03.2017
|
P-9
|
43
|
|
15.
|
VAKALATNAMA
|
|
44
|
|
16.
|
COURT FEE
|
|
45
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF MADHY PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
CAUSE
TITLE
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
|
S.No
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1.
|
24.09.2012
|
Though on 24.09.2012
and 04.06.2013 a spot inspection of the premises was carried out.
|
|
2.
|
24.12.2012
|
In the first spot
inspection dated 24.09.2012 assessment of Rs.63,470/- against M/s Sheela
Bakery was made against which petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.31,735/-
dated 24.12.2012 Vide Annexure P-1
|
|
3.
|
22.02.2013
|
The said assessment
order was assailed by petitioner but was negatived by order dated 22.02.2013
on the ground that the appeal is premature.
|
|
4.
|
04.06.2013
|
Though on 24.09.2012
and 04.06.2013 a spot inspection of the premises was carried out. 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.
|
|
5.
|
24.06.2015
|
In the second spot
inspection dated 04.06.2013 assessment of Rs.63,470/- against M/s Sheela
Bakery was made against which petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,60,138/-
Vide Receipt dated 24.06.2015 filed as Annexure
P-2,
|
|
6.
|
19.05.2015
|
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.
|
|
7.
|
19.05.2015
|
The Appellate Authority
were in seisin with an appeal preferred by petitioner against
recovery/assessment order dated 19.05.2015; whereby, petitioner 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.
|
|
8.
|
17.03.2016
|
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 petitioner, the Appellate Authority found
that since no case under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been
made out by the respondent No. 3 to 5 and a demand was raised by combining
loads of both the units, allowed the appeal.
|
|
9.
|
03.05.2016
|
Respondent
No. 3 to 5 had Challenged in the above petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India was to an order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the
Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act,
2003.
|
|
10.
|
25.07.2016
|
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
|
|
11.
|
13.10.2016
|
Petitioner raised a voice by
demanding the refund of amount recovered by respondent No. 3 to 5 vide his
representation dated 13.10.2016
|
|
12.
|
18.11.2016
|
further through a reminder
dated 18.11.2016 but respondent did not bother to hear his pain and
sufferings.
|
|
13.
|
21.04.2016
|
Petitioner submitted anther
representation dated 21.04.2016 for refund of amount already deposited.
|
|
14.
|
08.02.2017
|
Respondents were 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 recovered under the provision of
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
|
|
15.
|
01.03.2017
|
Petitioner submitted
another representation dated 01.03.2017 for refund of amount already
deposited. It was also submitted that he should be given connection afresh on
the premises of M/s Asian Bakery as he is trying to get the matter resolved
with his father. It is humbly submitted that the leased plot upon which the
Asian Bakery was situated was earlier leased out M/s Asian Enterprises,
thereafter the same was transferred in the name of M/s Asian Bakery.
|
|
16.
|
|
Petitioner preferred a
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against
in-action on the part of respondent authority in not refunding the amount of
Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with interest
deposited under the provision of
sub-section (2) Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
Format No. 7
(Chapter X, Rule 23)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
CAUSE
TITLE
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI,
Aged about 47 years, S/o
Mr. Anand Kumar Kundnani, Occupation – Business, Propertier - M/S Sheela Bakery, Shed No. -II, Industrial Area,
Adhartal, Jabalpur, (Madhya Pradesh), R/o Shanti Nagar, Damoh Naka,
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), BSNL – 94253-87838
Versus
RESPONDENTS
:1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
Through
the Additional Chief Secretary, Energy Department, Ministry, 312-C, Vallabh
Bhawan, Bhopal - 462 002 (Madhya Pradesh). Phone : 0755 - 244 1675, E-mail : acsenergymp@gmail.com
2. Madhya Pradesh Poorv
Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd., Through The Managing Director, Shakti
Bhawan, PO: Vidyut Nagar, Rampur, Jabalpur – 482 008 (Madhya Pradesh)
3. Executive Engineer,
(North Division),
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd., Adhartal, Jabalpur – 482 004, (Madhya Pradesh)
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd., Adhartal, Jabalpur – 482 004, (Madhya Pradesh)
4. Executive Engineer,
(Enforcement), Flying Squad No. 1, Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran
Company Ltd., Shakti Bhawan Rampur, Jabalpur- 482 008, (Madhya Pradesh).
5. Assistant Engineer,
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd., Adhartal, Jabalpur-
482 004, (Madhya Pradesh).
(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India).
1. Particulars of the Cause/ Order
against which the petition is made:
(1) Date of Order /
Notification/ Circular / Policy/ Decision Etc. : NIL
(2)
Passed in (Case Or File Number)
: NIL
(3)
Passed by (Name and Designation
of the Court, Authority, Tribunal Etc.) : NIL
(4) Subject –matter in
brief : By preferring this petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of
India invoking the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court
whereby calling in question the legality, validity, propriety and correctness
of the in-action on the part of respondent authority in not refunding the
amount of Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with
interest deposited under the provision of
sub-section (2) Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 inspite of the
fact that respondents’ case was rejected vide 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 confirming the Order dated 17.03.2016 passed
by the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity
Act, 2003. The point involved in this petition is that when the final
assessment Order was set –aside by the duly constituted appellate authority and
upheld by this Hon’ble High, whether the petitioner is entitled to refund the
amount deposited by him in terms of sub-section (2) Section 127 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
2.
A declaration that no proceeding on the same subject matter has
been previously instituted in any Court, Authority or Tribunal, if instituted,
the Status or result thereof, along with copy of the Order:
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 confirming the
Order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under
Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Details of the remedied
exhausted :
The petitioner declares
that he has availed all statutory and other remedies.
4. Delay, if any, in filing the petition
and explanation therefor :
From pillar to post petitioner was knocking every door for the
redressal of his grievances but at the end petitioner surrenders himself before
this Hon’ble High Court to seek justice as litigation
is the last resort when government authority completely disregard the rule of
law.
5. Facts of the Case :
1.
Petitioner is a
peace loving national of India and entitled for the all the benefit and
fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India.
Respondents are the instrumentality of state within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble High Court.
2. Respondent No. 3 to 5 had Challenged in the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India was to an order dated 17.03.2016
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 petitioner against recovery/assessment order dated 19.05.2015;
whereby, petitioner 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 petitioner deposited an amount of
Rs.31,735/- dated 24.12.2012 Vide Annexure
P-1 and Rs.1,60,138/- Vide Receipt dated 24.06.2015 filed as Annexure P-2, total
Rs.1,91,873/-. The said assessment order was assailed by petitioner 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 petitioner, the Appellate Authority found
that since no case under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been made
out by the respondent No. 3 to 5 and a demand was raised by combining loads of
both the units, allowed the appeal. Copy of the Order dated 17.03.2016 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-3.
3. 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 Hon’ble High 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 respondent No. 3 to 5 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. Copy of the 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 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4.
4. Petitioner raised a voice by demanding the refund of amount
recovered by respondent No. 3 to 5 vide his representation dated 13.10.2016 and
further through a reminder dated 18.11.2016 but respondent authorities did not
bother to hear his pain and sufferings. Copy of the Representation dated
13.10.2016 and reminder 18.11.2016 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5 & P-6. Petitioner submitted another
representation dated 21.04.2016 for refund of amount already deposited. Copy of
the representation dated 21.04.2016 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-7.
5. Respondents were 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 recovered under the
provision of Section 126 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. Copy of the Legal Notice dated 08.02.2017 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-8.
Petitioner submitted another representation dated 01.03.2017 for refund of
amount already deposited. It was also submitted that he should be given
connection afresh on the premises of M/s Asian Bakery as he is trying to get
the matter resolved with his father. It is humbly submitted that the leased
plot upon which the Asian Bakery was situated was earlier leased out M/s Asian Enterprises,
thereafter the same was transferred in the name of M/s Asian Bakery. Copy of
the representation dated 01.03.2017 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-9. Petitioner is
challenging the most arbitrary and illegal in-action on the part of the
respondents authorities on the following grounds amongst others :
6. Grounds urged :
A.
For that, The point involved in this petition is that when the
final assessment Order was set –aside by the duly constituted appellate
authority and upheld by this Hon’ble High, whether the petitioner is entitled
to refund the amount deposited by him in terms of sub-section (2) Section 127
of the Electricity Act, 2003. Wherever the consumer consumes electricity in
excess of the maximum of the contracted load, would the provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act be attracted on
its true scope and interpretation? The provisions of Section 126 contemplate
the following steps to be taken :
(i) An assessing officer is to conduct
inspection of a place or premises and the equipments, gadgets, machines,
devices found connected or used in such place.
(ii) The formation of a conclusion that such
person has indulged in unauthorized use of electricity.
(iii) The assessing officer to provisionally
assess, to the best of his judgment, the electricity charges payable by such
person.
(iv) The order of provisional assessment to
be served upon the person concerned in the manner prescribed, giving - him an
opportunity to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment.
(v) The assessing officer has to afford a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to such person and pass a final order of
assessment within 30 days from the date of service of such order of provisional
assessment.
(vi) The person, upon whom the provisional
order of assessment is served, is at liberty to pay the said amount within
seven days of the receipt of such order and where he files such objections,
final order of assessment shall be passed, against which such person has a
right of appeal under Section 127
of the 2003 Act within the prescribed period of limitation.
B.
For that, It is true that fiscal and penal laws are normally
construed strictly but this rule is not free of exceptions. In given
situations, this Hon’ble High Court may, even in relation to penal statutes,
decide that any narrow and pedantic, literal and lexical construction may not
be given effect to, as the law would have to be interpreted having regard to
the subject matter of the offence and the object that the law seeks to achieve.
The provisions of Section 126,
read with Section 127
of the 2003 Act, in fact, becomes a code in itself. Right from the initiation
of the proceedings by conducting an inspection, to the right to file an appeal
before the appellate authority, all matters are squarely covered under these
provisions. It specifically provides the method of computation of the amount
that a consumer would be liable to pay for excessive consumption of the
electricity and for the manner of conducting assessment proceedings. In other
words, Section 126
of the 2003 Act has a purpose to achieve, i.e., to put an implied restriction
on such unauthorized consumption of electricity. The provisions of the 2003
Act, applicable regulations and the Agreement executed between the parties at
the time of sanction of the load prohibit consumption of electricity in excess
of maximum sanctioned/ installed load.
C.
For that, The expression `unauthorized use of electricity' on its
plain reading means use of electricity in a manner not authorized by the
licensee of the Board. `Authorization' refers to the permission of the licensee
to use of electricity', subject to the terms and conditions for such use and
the law governing the subject. To put it more aptly, the supply of electricity
to a consumer is always subject to the provisions of the 2003 Act, State Acts, Regulations
framed thereunder and the terms and conditions of supply in the form of a
contract or otherwise.
D.
For that, Generally, when electricity is consumed in violation of
any or all of these, it would be understood as `unauthorized use of electricity'. But this general view will have
to be examined in the light of the fact that the legislature has opted to
explain this term for the purposes of Section 126 of the 2003
Act. The said provision, along with the Explanation, reads as under: -
"126.
Assessment.- (1) 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.
(2) The order of
provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or
possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(3) The person, on
whom an order has been served under sub-section (2), shall be entitled to file
objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing
officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such
person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of
service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges
payable by such person.
(4) Any person
served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and
deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of
such provisional assessment order upon him:
(5) If the
assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of
electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period
during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place and if,
however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken
place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve
months immediately preceding the date of inspection.;
(6) The assessment
under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable
for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5).
Explanation : For
the purposes of this section,--
(a) "assessing
officer" means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as
the case may be, designated as such by the State Government;
(b)
"unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity--
(i) by any
artificial means; or
(ii) by a means not
authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or
(iii) through a
tampered meter; or
(iv) for the
purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was Authorized; or
(v) for the
premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was
authorised."
E. For that, The `unauthorized use of electricity' means the
usage of electricity by the means and for the reasons stated in sub- clauses
(i) to (v) of clause (b) of Explanation to Section 126 of the 2003
Act. Some of the illustratively stated circumstances of `unauthorised use' in
the section cannot be construed as exhaustive. The `unauthorized use of
electricity' would mean what is stated under that Explanation, as well as such
other unauthorized user, which is squarely in violation of the above mentioned
statutory or contractual provisions.
F. For
that, The appeal under Section 127 would lie only against the final
order passed under Section 126 that too within 30 days of the said
order. The appeal shall be filed, maintained and dealt with in accordance with
the procedure specified in Section 127 of the 2003 Act. A bare reading of
the provisions of Section 127 shows that it is the final order
made under Section 126 which is appealable under Section
127 of the 2003 Act. In other words, issuance of a notice or a
provisional order of assessment as may be made by the assessing officer in
terms of sub-section (1) to sub- section (3) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act would not be
the order against which an appeal would lie. Section 127 postulates any person,
read as under :
“127. Appeal to appellate authority.- (1) Any
person aggrieved by a final order made under section 126 may, within thirty
days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner
and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to
an appellate authority as may be prescribed.
(2) No appeal against an order
of assessment under sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal
to *[half] of the assessed amount is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft
with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed
along with the appeal.
(3) The appellate authority
referred to in sub-section (1) shall dispose of the appeal after hearing the
parties and pass appropriate order and send copy of the order to the assessing
officer and the appellant.
(4) The order of the appellate
authority referred to in sub-section (1) passed under sub-section (3) shall be
final.
(5) No appeal shall lie to the
appellate authority referred to in sub-section (1) against the final order made
with the consent of the parties.
(6) When a person
defaults in making payment of assessed amount, he, in addition to the assessed
amount shall be liable to pay, on the expiry of thirty days from the date of
order of assessment, an amount of interest at the rate of sixteen per cent. per
annum compounded every six months.
G. For that, The respondets wrongly mentioned that the
recovery/assessment order has been issued against to factories the book advised
dated 23-07-2012 and letter dated 22-04-2014 were issued to M/s Sheela Bakery,
by mentioning to services connections, which shows the clubbed billing of to
different connection, therefore the petitioners objection was sustained. It is
humbly submitted that Section 145 of Electricity Act bars the
jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect
of any matter which any Assessing Officer referred to in Section 126 or an Appellate Authority
referred to in Section 127
of the Electricity Act or the Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Electricity Act is empowered to determine. Section 126 of Electricity Act empowers the
Assessing Officer to make assessment in respect of unauthorized use of
electricity. It provides that if the Assessing Officer, upon inspection, comes
to the conclusion that a person is indulging in unauthorized use of
electricity, he shall assess the electricity charges payable by such person and
shall pass a final order of assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity
of hearing to the person concerned. As per Section 127 of the Electricity Act, a
person aggrieved by a final order made under Section 126 may prefer an appeal against
the said order to the Appellate Authority.
7. Relief Prayed for :
From the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner prays for
the following writ or directions :
(i)
To call for the
records in relation to subject matter of lis
for its kind perusal.
(ii)
To issue appropriate
writ or direction that the petitioner is entitled to refund the amount
deposited by him in terms of sub-section (2) Section 127 of the Electricity
Act, 2003.
(iii)
To issue
appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing refund of the
amount of Rs.31,735/- and Rs.1,60,138/- total Rs.1,91,873/- together with
interest deposited under the provision of
sub-section (2) Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 with interest @
12 % per annum from the date of Order passed by this Hon’ble High Court till
the actual date of realizations.
(iv)
To issue
appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
authorities to provide a new connection a fresh in accordance with Law in
premises.
(v)
Cost of this
petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.
Any other writ or direction
deems fit and proper may also be granted looking to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
8. Interim Order / Writ, if prayed
for :
In view of the facts and circumstance of the case during pendency
of instant writ petition directing not to take coercive action against electricity
connection in the premises of the petitioner, in the larger interest of
justice.
9.
Documents relied on but not in possession of the petitioner :
All the
relevant material and original records in relation to subject matter in dispute
is lying with respondent authorities which may kindly be requisitioned by the
Hon’ble High Court for its kind perusal.
10.
Caveat
:
That, no notice of
lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
CAUSE
TITLE
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH
& Ors.
AFFIDAVIT
I, LAKHAMI CHAND KUNDNANI,
Aged about 47 years, S/o Mr. Anand Kumar Kundnani, Occupation – Business,
Properiter - 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, the
above named deponent, solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1.
That I am the Petitioner in the
above mentioned writ petition and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to
in the writ Petition.
2.
That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the accompanying writ petition
are true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on
legal advice, which I believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no
part is false.
3.
That the Annexure No(s). P-1 to P-9 to the accompanying writ petition are
true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexures with their
respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof.
PLACE
: JABALPUR
DATED
: DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, LAKHAMI CHAND KUNDNANI, the above
named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the affidavit
above are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed
or falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH
& Ors.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description of document
|
Date of document
|
Original copy
|
Number of page
|
|
1.
|
petitioner deposited an amount
of Rs.31,735/-
|
24.12.2012
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
2.
|
petitioner deposited an amount
of Rs.1,60,138/- Vide Receipt
|
24.06.2015
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
3.
|
Order passed by appelleate Authority
|
17.03.2016
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
4.
|
Order passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Madhya Pradessh, 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
|
25.07.2016
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
5.
|
Representation submitted by
petitioner
|
13.10.2016
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
6.
|
reminder submitted
by petitioner
|
18.11.2016
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
7.
|
representation submitted by
petitioner
|
21.04.2016
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
8.
|
Legal Notice sent by petitioner through his Counsel
|
08.02.2017
|
Xerox
|
07 (Seven)
|
|
9.
|
representation submitted by
petitioner
|
01.03.2017
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
APPENDIX 1-A
FORMAT OF V A K A L A T N A M A
[Rules
4 (1) of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961]
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017
(O)
PETITIONER : LAKHAMI
CHAND KUNDNANI
Versus
RESPONDENTS
: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
I, the petitioner named below do hereby appoint, engage and
authorize advocate (s) named below to
appear, act and plead in aforesaid case / proceeding, which shall include
applications for restoration, setting aside for ex - parte orders, corrections,
modifications, review and recall of orders assed in these proceedings, in this
Court or in any other Court in which the same may be tried / heard / proceeded
with and also in the appellate, revisional or executing Court in respect of the
proceedings arising from this case / proceedings as per agreed terms and
conditions and authorize them to sign and file
pleadings , appeals, cross objections, petitions, applications,
affidavits, or the other documents as may be deemed necessary and proper for
the prosecution / defence of the said
case in all its stages and also agrees to ratify and confirm acts done by them
as if done by me.
In
witness whereof I do hereby set my hands to these presents, the contents of
which have been duly understood by me, this – day of ----------------- 2017 at
Jabalpur.
Particulars (in block letters) of each Party Executing Vakalatnama
|
Name and father s / Husband s Name
|
Registered Address
|
E-Mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if any)
|
Status in the case
|
Full Signature/ **Thumb
Impression
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
(6)
|
|
|
PETITIONER
|
|
Accepted
Particulars (in block letters) of each Advocate Accepting
Vakalatnama
|
|
Full Name &
Enrollment No. in State Bar Council
|
Address for Service
|
E-mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if
any)
|
Full Signature
|
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
|
1.
|
VIJAY RAGHAV SINGH
EN. No. M. P. /
ADV / 1554 / 2003
|
SEAT NO. 93, GOLDEN
JUBILEE BUILDING, CHAMBER NO. 317, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES,
JABALPUR 482 001
|
IDEA 98261-43925
|
|
|
|
2.
|
VIJAY KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA, EN. No. M. P. / ADV /
949/ 2006
|
SEAT NO. 81, HALL NO.
1, FIRST FLOOR, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
|
NIL
|
RIM 93015 04927
AIRTEL 97554 82448
|
|
|
3.
|
AMIT KUMAR KHARE,
EN. No. M. P. /
ADV / 1291/ 2006
|
HOUSE NO. 1483 / 17,
SARASWATI COLONY, BEHIND PARIJAT BUILDING, CHERITAL, JABALPUR 482 001
|
NIL
|
BSNL 94258 66726
LAND LINE 0761 - 2345 005
|
|
*Score out
which is not applicable
** The thumb
impression shall be attested by a literate person giving above particulars.
No comments:
Post a Comment