S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) ASSAILING order dated 12.03.2015 passed under Section 135(1 -A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the ground that without supplying a copy of inspection report and without affording an opportunity to raise objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 12.03.2015 has been passed in gross violation of the rules of natural justice. Relying on a decision in "Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -I and Another", reported in : (2008) 14 SCC 151, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in cases where there is no requirement under the statute for providing hearing, before passing an order which entails civil and evil consequences, the authority is under a duty to afford opportunity of hearing. Referring to provision contained in 3rd proviso to Section 135(1 -A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is contended that the respondent -Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited is required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the 2003 Act, whereas, the respondent - Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited has resorted to the Supply Code Regulation framed under Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 r/w Section 50 of the 2003 Act. It is thus, submitted that the respondent - Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited has raised a demand of Rs. 71,12,545/ -, arbitrarily, in purported exercise of power under Section 135(1 -A) of the Act, which is liable to be quashed.
(2.) REITERATING the stand of the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited in W.P.(C) No. 247 of 2010, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent - Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is concluded by a decision of this Court in "Harihar Cold Storage v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors.", [W.P. (C) No. 247 of 2010] wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that, "The next submission in my view against the order of said assessment, the consumer has right to file application before the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Act, which has power to make final assessment. It is worth mentioning that against the order of Special Court an appeal lie before the High Court under Section 156 of the Act". Relying on decision in "Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (Southco) and other v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill", reported in : (2012) 2 SCC 108, the learned counsel for the respondent -Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited submits that the provisions under Section 126 and under Section 135(1 -A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 are different and distinct and therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that even though criminal case has been lodged, the demand in terms of Section 135(1 -A) of the Act can be raised only by following procedure under Section 126, is untenable.
(3.) IT is submitted that in "M/s. Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Company Ltd. v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others", reported in : (2013) 3 JBCJ 356 (HC), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held as under: 35. "However, we are of the opinion that against this order, statutory remedy is available to the appellant under Section 154(5) and (6) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where we should interfere in the order of assessment which was passed after giving opportunity to the appellant and can be subject matter before the Special Court where the case is pending.";