AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.R. Mohapatra, J
This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.
The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the notice dated 05.06.2021 (Annexure-7) purportedly issued under Section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act).
Mr. Prusty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the authorities under the TPCODL have raised an inflated bill against the Petitioner without taking into consideration the payment made by him at different points of time.
It is his submission that earlier there was a dispute with regard to electricity bill and the power supply was disconnected to the Petitioner-Unit.
However, subsequently an arrangement was made and the Petitioner went on paying dues in accordance with such arrangement. Without considering the same an inflated bill under Annexure-1 has been raised and notice under Section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act under Annexure-7 has been issued.
As such, he prays for setting aside the notice under Annexure-7 also.
Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, it appears that the dispute is with regard to the energy bill raised by the Opposite Parties (TPCODL). As such, the Petitioner should have approached the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. It is open to the Petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.