2024:MLHC:686
Serial No. 04
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 191 of 2024 Date of Decision: 31.07.2024
Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Limited
A Company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and having its Registered Office at Umtru
Road, Norbung, Ri-Bhoi, Byrnihat,
Meghalaya – 793101, represented by
Shri. Krishna Kumar Agnihotri, son of
Kripashankar Agnihotri, presently residing
at Umtru Road, Norbung, Ri-Bhoi,
Byrnihat, Meghalaya – 793101 :::Petitioner
-Vs-
1.Meghalaya Power Distribution Company
Ltd. represented by its Chairman and Managing
Director, Lumjiengshai, Shillong
Meghalaya
2. Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation
Ltd. represented by its Director,
Lumjiengshai, Shillong, Meghalaya
3.The Director (Distribution)
Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation
Ltd., Shillong, Meghalaya
4.The Chief Engineer (Distribution),
Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation
Ltd., Shillong, Meghalaya
1
2024:MLHC:686
5.The Executive Engineer, Byrnihat
Distribution Division, MePTCL,
Umjarain, Shillong, Meghalaya
6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Ri-Bhoi
Distribution Sub-Division, Meghalaya Power
Distribution Corporation Ltd., Ri-Bhoi
7.The Superintending Engineer, Ri-Bhoi
Distribution Circle, MePDCL, Umiam :::Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. S. Thapa, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.S. Pandey, Adv.
Ms. R. Colney, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
Oral:
1. This application has been filed by the petitioner Company assailing
the action of the respondent Corporation in not allowing temporary
disconnection of electricity to their plant for carrying out major repairs,
2
2024:MLHC:686
upgradation and maintenance and further for charging fixed charges vide the
impugned electricity bill dated 20.05.2024.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner Company to upgrade and
undertake major maintenance work had to shut down its plant for at least
3(three) months, and in this regard had by letter dated 28.02.2024, requested
the respondent No. 2, to allow temporary disconnection for 4(four) months.
The respondent No. 2, in reply thereto stipulated certain conditions as per
clause 6.6(1) of the MSERC Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2018,
which amongst others, was that all outstanding bills, as on the date of
application were to be cleared. The petitioner Company thereafter, by a
detailed representation dated 20.03.2024, has stated that the conditions in
clause 6.6(1) of the Regulation, requiring the petitioner to clear outstanding
dues would not be applicable, as the entire matter regarding payment and
the tariff on which the outstanding dues was to be paid, was sub judice
before the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MSERC).
It was also pointed out by the petitioner that this High Court had passed a
consent order dated 15.02.2024, wherein it was directed that the fixation of
tariff would be subject to the final adjudication by the MSERC. The
grievances of the petitioner for which approach has been made before this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is because, by the
impugned electricity bill dated 20.05.2024, demand has been made for
3
2024:MLHC:686
payment of unresolved electricity charges which are still under adjudication
before the MSERC, as a condition for allowing the temporary
disconnection.
3. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Thapa, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent
Corporation in demanding the settlement of dues which are still under
adjudication, before allowing disconnection is arbitrary, and has stressed
that this Court in the consent order dated 15.02.2024, had held that the tariff
collected by the respondent No. 2, and the special tariff paid by the
petitioner Company would be subject to the final adjudication by the
MSERC. He therefore submits that interference is called for by this Court,
in exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the impugned bill dated 20.05.2024.
4. Before adverting to the submissions of the respondent Corporation, it
is to be noted herein that, in the course of these proceedings, the petitioner
Company without waiting for the disconnection to be carried out by the
respondent Corporation had on its own accord disconnected the electricity
connection on 21.03.2024, and has stated this fact at Para – 8 of the writ
petition. It has also been submitted that the plant now has resumed
operations and there is no longer any necessity for disconnection, and so in
effect the only aspect for determination that remains, would be whether
4
2024:MLHC:686
during the period of disconnection for which no electricity had been
consumed, the petitioner Company would be liable to pay fixed charges.
5. In this respect, this Court to effect closure of the matter, had directed
the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation to obtain instructions,
whether payment of 50% of the fixed charges for the period of non-
consumption of electricity by the petitioner Company would suffice to end
the matter, so as not to cloud the instant issue with the larger issue pending
before the MSERC. However, the same was not agreeable to the respondent
Corporation, and as such, the said proposal stands closed, and the matter is
taken forward before this Court for disposal.
6. Coming to the submissions of the learned counsel Mr. A.S. Pandey on
behalf of the respondent Corporation, it has firstly been contended that the
petitioner has alternative remedy available by approaching the Consumer
Grievances Redressal Forum, constituted under the MSERC (Redressal of
Grievances) Regulations, 2007. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner has no right to seek waiver of fixed charges, as Section 45(3) of
the Electricity Act 2003, provides for levy of fixed charge, and that
Regulation 6.6 of the MSERC Supply Code conditions for temporary
disconnection would not be available to the petitioner, as admittedly the
disconnection had been done by the petitioner Company itself. It has also
been argued by the learned counsel that the issue of stay on the recovery of
5
2024:MLHC:686
previous dues is not the relief claimed in the present case, and further that
even otherwise as the MSERC is deciding a special tariff matter, any order
from this Court might interfere and prejudice the adjudication before the
Commission.
7. As noted earlier, as the main bone of contention, no longer exists for
consideration, that is the temporary disconnection, as requested by the
petitioner which was sought to be enforced, by seeking directions from this
Court, and further the proposal for closure not being agreed to, this Court
accordingly, due to the existence of alternate remedy, as provided under the
Regulation 4(2) of the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Redressal of Grievances) Regulations 2007, desists from entertaining the
instant writ petition any further, leaving it to the petitioner to seek
appropriate remedy before the said forum.
8. The instant writ petition on these circumstances stands closed and
disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 6
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2024.07.31 17:53:51 IST
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)