Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 2278 (GAU)

ANISUR RAHMAN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

WP(C)/2985/2024 · 2026-07-15

Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Writ Petition (Civil)body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010114502024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2985/2024 ANISUR RAHMAN S/O- LATE ABDUL KHALEQUE, RESIDENT OF VILL- NAGABHANDA, P.O. NAGABHANDA, P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DISTRICT- MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1 3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL ASSAM ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (CAEDCL) NAGAON ELECTRICAL CIRCLE NAGAON 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MORIGAON ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL (CAR) MORIGAON 5:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER MORIGAON ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL (CAR) MORIGAON 6:THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER MORIGAON ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL (CAR) MORIGAO Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR S ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 16.07.2026 Heard Shri A.R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri N.Z. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus and/or any other writ shall not be issued to:- a) direct/command the respondents to pay the remaining portion of the petitioner's arrear bill amounting to Rs. 20,96,199.29 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Ninety Nine and Twenty Nine Paisa); b) set aside/ quash the final settlement communication dated 12/04/2022 issued by the Chief General Manager (Com & EE) addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Electrical Circle, APDCL-CAR, Morigaon by which, the arrear bill of the petitioner is reduced from Rs.20,96,199.29 to Rs. 2,52,383.00; c) direct/command the Respondent No. 2 to dispose of the representation dated Page No.# 3/4 11/08/2022 (Annexure-15) submitted by the petitioner; d) pass such further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice; …” 3. The learned Senior Counselhas submitted that there is arrears of bill extending to Rs.20,96,199.29(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Ninety Nine and Twenty Nine Paisa) to be paid by the APDCL to the petitioner, who is a franchisee. 4. On the other hand, Shri Choudhury, the learned Standing Counselhas submitted that the matter has been examined and the bills are found to be inflated. However, there is an admission to the extent of Rs.2,52,383/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Three) onlywhich have already been released to the petitioner on 28.06.2022. He has also submitted that inflated bills have been raised by inserting names of fictitious consumers. 5. The aforesaid projection has however been stoutly disputed by Shri Bhuyan, the learned Senior counsel.He has however fairly submitted that since the issue would be in the realm of disputed questions of fact, he may be allowed to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievance wherein the scope of adducing evidence would be available. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission and the facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition is closed by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievance so far as the present claim is concerned and if such approach is made, the same is to be adjudicated strictly in accordance with law.The petitioner would also be at liberty to invokeSection 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of any delay in Page No.# 4/4 instituting the caseand the same is directed to be considered in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant