AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Issue notice to the opposite party No. 1, returnable at an early date.
Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Vishal Dixit appearing for the opposite party No. 2.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of Regulation 8.2 (d) of the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer GRF and EO) Regulation 2007, No. representation shall lie to the Electricity Ombudsman which is in respect of the matters pending in any Court, Tribunal, Arbitrator or any other competent authority.
The Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 1792 (MB) of 1999 before this Court challenging the recovery proceedings and as such the representation before the Electricity Ombudsman relating to said recovery proceedings was not maintainable. However, by the impugned judgment the opposite party No. 1 has granted interference and allowed the representation.
Mr. Vishal Dixit, on the other hand, submitted that the Writ Petition No. 1792 (M/B) of 1999 relates to recovery of demand of Rs. 50,76,783/- only whereas the representation was made with respect to three different demands.
Prima facie, a perusal of the interim order indicates that the opposite party No. 1 has directed that the implementation of demand of Rs. 50,76,783/-shall remain suspended till the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 1792 (MB) of 1999, which clearly indicates that it relates to the said recovery which is under consideration in the pending writ petition.
The order impugned further indicates that with regard to the recovery of Rs. 45,49,741/-, the opposite party No. 1 while passing the impugned order mentioned that Sri Sanjay Agarwal, Director of the opposite party No. 2 also produced his affidavit that whatever decision will be given by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1792 (MB) of 1999 shall be honoured by him. Taking into consideration the said fact the order has been passed that the Petitioner shall adjust the security amount along with the interest against the demand of Rs. 45,49,741/- and thereafter raise the demand for remaining amount within 30 days.
In view of Regulation 8.2 (d) of the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer GRF and EO) Regulation 2007, I am, prima facie, of the view that the representation of the Petitioner in this regard was not maintainable.
In this view of the matter, the operation of the impugned order dated 23.6.2011, shall remain stayed.
The opposite parties shall file counter affidavit within four weeks with liberty to move application for vacation of the stay order also. In case the counter affidavit is filed, the Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter along with Writ Petition No. 1792 (M/B) of 1999.