Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33428 (ALL)

M/S R.D. ICE AND COLD STORAGE P LTD. v. DAKSHINANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS

WRIC/6246/2006 · 2025-09-14

Prashant Bilgaiyan Registrar J Criminal, Shekhar B Saraf

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 6246 of 2006 With WRIT - C No. - 55908 of 2007 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. The prayer in the Writ - C No.6246 of 2006 is as follows : "a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the revised assessment order/ bill dated 16.12.2005 and consequential demand notice dated 20.12.2005 (Annexure No.10 & 11 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3 in purported exercise of power under Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 read with clause 6.8 (c) of Electricity Supply Code, 2005; b) Issue writ, order direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Clause 8.2 (iv) of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 as ultra vires of section 126 (6) to the Electricity Act, 2003; c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bidhan Chandra Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : W.H. Khan, Baleshwar Chaturvedi, S.C. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : B.C. Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, Rajesh Tripathi M/S R.D. Ice And Cold Storage P Ltd. .....Petitioner(s) Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited And Others .....Respondent(s) R.D. Ice And Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. .....Petitioner(s) Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Ors. .....Respondent(s) respondents from recovering sum in question from the petitioner in any manner including by coercive process;" 2. The prayer in the Writ-C No.55908 of 2007 is as follows: "a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the revised ex-parte assessment order dated 3.9.2007 and revised assessment bill dated 1.9.2007 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No.2; b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining the Respondents from disconnecting power supply and recovering sum in question from the petitioner in any manner including by coercive proecess; c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that designation of the Executive Engineers of Respondent No.1 by the State Government vide letter dated 27.6.2006 is ultra vires to Section 126 of the Act of 2003;" 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. It is to be noted that the revised assessment order dated 16.12.2005, consequntial demand notice dated 20.12.2005 (Writ - C No.6246 of 2006) and the revised ex-parte assessment order dated 3.9.2007 and revised assessment bill dated 1.9.2007 (Writ-C No.55908 of 2007) have been passed. 5. From perusal of record it appears that in the first writ petition, the Executive Engineer (Revenue) has passed the order. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that only Executive Engineer (Distribution) has the power to pass assessment order. In our view the power was not with the Executive Engineer (Revenue) to pass the assessment bill and the demand notice and the power lies with the Executive Engineer (Distribution). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order and demand notice are quashed and set aside. 6. The challenge in the second writ petition is with regard to the revised ex-parte assessment order passed by the Executive Engineer (Distribution). With regard to the revised ex-parte assessment order passed in 2007, the writ petition is allowed granting the liberty to the writ WRIC No. 6246 of 2006 2 petitioner to file appeal against the said revised assessment order and revised assessment bill within a period of four weeks from date without payment of any pre deposit as substantial amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. The authorities are directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and thereafter passed a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the said appeal. The other prayers in the aforesaid writ petitions have not been pressed by the writ petitioners. September 15, 2025 Md Faisal WRIC No. 6246 of 2006 3 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad