AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This writ petition is by a person who was forced to run from pillar to post to have his grievance redressed regarding back-billing charge raised by the third respondent-assistant executive engineer of the fourth respondent electricity supply company, now calling upon the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 838/-, by way of institution charges/fee.
In one such effort, while petitioner had failed before the authorities, the matter had come to this court in WP No. 27429 of 2005 and this court in terms of order dated 28-8-2006 [copy at Annexure-B to the writ petition], set aside the affirming order of the appellate authority confirming the demand and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the appellate authority.
After the matter went back, it appears due to some statutory changes, while the appellate authority is either chief engineer or superintending engineer, in terms of Regulation 3(4) of the KERC (Procedure for Filing Appeal Before the Appellate Authority) Regulations, 2005, the appeal to be presented before the appellate authority has to be accompanied by what is known as institution charge at the rate of 1% of the amount in dispute and the subject matter of the appeal, subject to a minimum of Rs. 100/- if the amount in dispute is up to Rs. 1,00,000/- and at 1% of the amount subject to a minimum of Rs. 2,000/- if the amount in dispute is above Rs. 1,00,000/-.
The appellate authority having insisted the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 838/-, being 1% of the subject matter of appeal viz., the disputed back billing charge of Rs. 83,807/-, the petitioner has yet again come back to this court contending that the demand is not justified; that the petitioner is not liable to pay 1% fee, as it is not a fresh institution of appeal and more over the matter having been remanded by this court as an appeal which was already pending before the erstwhile appellate authority, the same question of payment of institution charges as per the amended statutory provisions does not arise in the case of the petitioner.
On issue of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through Counsel and filed their statement of objections.
The relevant regulation i.e. Regulation 3(4) reads as under:
Filing of appeal
(4) The appeal shall be accompanied by fee shown in the table below:
---------------------------------------------- Sl. Amount assessed Fee No. ---------------------------------------------- i) Up to Rs 1,00,000 1% of the assessed amount subject to minimum of Rs. 100 ---------------------------------------------- ii) Above Rs. 1,00,000 1% of the assessed amount subject to minimum of Rs. 2000 ----------------------------------------------
Though Sri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents would draw attention to the relevant statutory provisions, I am of the opinion that these provisions are not applicable to the present case, particularly when an appeal had already been instituted by the petitioner before the appellate authority under the then existing statutory provisions and an adverse order before such appellate authority, which was subject matter of a writ petition filed before this court and having been quashed by this court and the matter remanded to the appellate authority, the petitioner does not become liable to pay 1% institution charge, as it is not a new appeal instituted by the petitioner under the amended statutory provisions, which envisages payment of 1% of the value of the appeal as institution charges. The impugned demand is therefore not in order and is liable to be quashed.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand dated 2-11-2006 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is quashed and the appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner without insisting payment of this fee.
Rule issued and made absolute.