- (1.) The petitioner in the writ petition has laid a challenge to the recovery citation dated 29.01.2018 issued for recovery of unpaid electricity dues. The contention of the petitioner as averred in the writ petition are inconsistent. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition it has been stated that there was some dispute regarding the bill for which purpose the Electricity Department carried out the checking of the Meter. The Meter was found to be in order and no irregularity was detected during said checking. A certificate in this regard was also issued by the Department. Subsequently petitioner contends in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that she had not paid the electricity bills w.e.f. May, 2017 to January, 2018.
(2.) The proceedings for recovery have been initiated for admitted non payment of electricity dues. The action of the authority is a legal recourse against consumers who have defaulted in payment of electricity dues. There is no infirmity in the recovery proceedings and the same cannot be interfered with.
(3.) However, it is clarified that these findings will not operate against the petitioner, to bar any statutory or civil remedy as may be available. In case such remedy, including one for payment of dues in instalments as provided for in the Electricity Code, if applicable to the petitioner, is invoked, the authority shall decide the controversy without being constrained by the observations made above.;