Samapti Chatterjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner files the present writ petition assailing the impugned quotation amount of Rs.16,57,319/- raised by the respondent No.3 towards the shifting charges of the electric pole.
(2.) Mr. Samanta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering the petitioner's representation dated 3rd April, 2018 (appears at page 36 of the writ petition) the respondent authority arbitrarily and illegally by adopting unfair practice has raised the impugned quotation letter dated 30th August, 2018 thereby directing the petitioner to pay the shifting charges amounting to Rs.16,57,319/-. Therefore, Mr. Samanta submits that court should quash the impugned quotation letter dated 30th August, 2018 and direct the respondent authority to give an opportunity of hearing on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 3rd April, 2018.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Koley, learned Advocate appearing for the Distribution Company submits that upon the application of the petitioner for shifting, the letter dated 30th August, was issued for payment of Rs.16,57,319/- towards the shifting charges as per the rule. Therefore, the question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner does not and cannot arise. Mr. Koley further contends that it is the prayer of the petitioner to shift the pole from the petitioner's land in question. Therefore, for shifting, the petitioner has to pay the shifting charges. Unfortunately, after receiving the letter dated 30th August, 2018, the petitioner without taking any step to make the payment of the said amount towards the shifting charges, approached before this Hon'ble court thereby filing the present writ petition. Mr. Koley further submits that the present writ petition should be dismissed in limine with costs.;