- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 9th July, 2009 (Annexure6), whereby prayer for extension of time for depositing Rs.5,00,000/(five lacs), as directed by VIDYUT UPBHOKTA SHIKAYAT NIWARAN FORUM (for short Forum), was rejected.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, it has challenged the bill dated 18th January, 2008 (Annexure2) before the Forum. During the pendency of the case, prayer was made for reconnection of electricity. By order dated 4th September, 2008, said prayer was allowed by the Forum subject to payment of Rs.5,00,000/(five lacs) within a period of ten days. The payment could not be made, as the Director of the Company fell seriously ill and had to go to United States of America (USA) for treatment. Subsequently, after some time, the petitioner prayed for extension of time, explaining its inability to pay the amount within the prescribed time, but the said prayer was rejected by the impugned order dated 9th July, 2009. It has been stated that the petitioner was all along ready and willing to deposit the amount within the time fixed by the Forum, but the petitioner could not do so under the aforesaid circumstance beyond its control. However, the Forum did not appreciate the said circumstance and rejected the petitioner's prayer. It has been submitted that the petitioner is still ready to pay the amount fixed by the Forum for reconnection of electricity to the petitioner. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. It has been stated that though sufficient time was granted by the Forum to deposit the amount for reconnection of the electricity, but the petitioner failed to do so. The petitioner also did not seek any extension of time during the said period. The petitioner came with a prayer for extension of time after an inordinate delay. The Forum has rightly rejected the petitioner's prayer. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. I also perused the record. On 4th September, 2008, the Forum had passed an interim order for reconnection of electricity subject to payment of Rs.5,00,000/ (five lacs) within ten days. The petitioner has explained that it could not deposit the amount due to illness of the Director, who had to undergo treatment in USA. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Forum has not considered the said circumstance and has refused to extend time. Once the interim relief was granted subject to the said condition and the petitioner was ready and willing to comply with the order, explaining the circumstance under which it could not comply within the time fixed by the forum, the request for extension should not have been mechanically rejected by the Forum.
(3.) IT is also true that the petitioner has approached the Forum after an inordinate delay, which could have been avoided by instructing its counsel to make such prayer even from distant place. Considering the above, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 9th July, 2009 (Annexure6) is set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's electrical line within two weeks subject to payment of Rs.6,00,000/ (six lacs). Since the matter is said to be still pending before the Forum, the same shall be decided by the Forum on its own merit. This Court has not gone into the controversies of rival claims of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this interlocutory application. Accordingly, I.A. No.1898 of 2012 is rejected as not pressed.;