Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143515-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7990 of 2005 Petitioner :- M/S Sunder Milk Product Thru Its Secretary Shobha Ram Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru Its G.M. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- M.K. Gupta,Pankaj Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Tiwari,Nripendra Misra,S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the minimum consumption charge for the period of August, 2002 to September, 2004 and late payment of surcharge levied against him by the respondents and consequential demand notice. 3. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the petitioner was having an electricity connection which was installed on 01.12.2000. An inspection was made by the Officer of the Electricity Department on 22.11.2001 as some defect was found in the meter of the petitioner. Subsequently, a demand notice dated 26.03.2002 was sent to the petitioner of Rs.4,83,284.90. Against the said demand notice, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Electricity (Consumer) Regulation, 1984. The petitioner did not deposit the required amount in compliance of the demand notice. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner's electricity supply connection was disconnected. Subsequently, the appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority in its meeting dated 08.09.2004. It was observed in the order of the Appellate Authority that there was no tampering found in the meter, however, the meter reading was found incorrect because of the polarity reverse from C.T. since the date of installation of the meter. 5. Against the order dated 08.09.2024, petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.42267 of 2004. Subsequently, in pursuance of the interim order dated 07.10.2004 passed by this Court, electricity supply to the petitioner was restored on 15.10.2004 on depositing of Rs.1,16,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Appellate Court has clearly observed that there was no tempering in the meter, therefore, demand of minimum consumption charge and late payment of surcharge was absolutely illegal as the electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected not on account of the fault of the petitioner, but due to incorrect inspection made by the Electricity Department itself. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Modern Rice Mill vs. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2012 (1) ADJ 296. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that in pursuance of the demand notice dated 26.03.2002, the petitioner has not deposited the electricity bill though no stay order was granted by the Appellate authority, therefore, due to non- payment of electricity dues, electric supply of the petitioner was disconnected, therefore, it is the petitioner who is at fault for the electricity disconnection. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and perusing the record, it is clear that though an inspection was made on 02.11.2001 in which tampering in the meter was found and a demand was also raised, and it is not in dispute that the meter reading was incorrect because of the polarity reverse from C.T., and this demand notice was also upheld by the Appellate authority. 9. As the petitioner during the pendency of appeal against the demand notice dated 26.03.2002 did not deposit the electricity dues, though no interim order was granted by the by the Appellate Authority, therefore, the Electricity Department had no option except to disconnect the electricity supply of the petitioner, which was subsequently restored on depositing the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.42267 of 2004. Therefore, on restoration of the aforesaid electricity connection, the petitioner would be liable to pay the minimum consumption charge. 10. The judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply in the present case, and hence, would not help the petitioner. 11. In such view of the fact, this Court does not find any illegality in the demand notice dated 10.01.2005 seeking minimum consumption charge between the period from from August, 2002 to September, 2004. 12. Consequently, the writ petition fails, and is, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 NS (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad