1 2025:CGHC:8112-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 117 of 2025 M/s Shri Gajanan Saw Mill, Steel And Wooden Furniture A Partnership Firm, Address- Shed No. 2, Industrial Estate, Dhamdha Road, Durg (C.G.), Through Its Partner Sachin Darwhekar S/o Shri Bhau Rao Darwhekar, Aged About 33 (Now 44) Years, R/o Kailash Nagar, Near Talab, Titurdih Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Government Of C.G. Undertaking, Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chief Engineer C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent Of Engineer City Circle-Cum-Appellate Authority, C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Executive Engineer Vigilance C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Assistant Engineer Vigilance C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 6 - The Assistant Engineer C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Jawahar Nagar Zone, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for respondents on I.A. No.01/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 08 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C). No. 1825/2013 (M/s Shri Gajanan Saw Mill Steel and Wooden Furniture vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited and others) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/writ petitioner firm runs mill/industry in name and style of "M/s Shri Gajanan Saw Mill Steel and Wooden Furniture". Land has been allotted lease for 3 establishment of industry. The appellant firm applied for the electricity connection after completing formalities in year 2010 which was given by respondent department to run mill/industry which was classified in industrial tariff category, the firm has been regularly paying electricity bills. All of sudden, on 29.11.2012 the respondent No.4 & 5 came to the industry for spot inspection and prepared report to the effect that some equipments were being used for manufacture of the furniture. On 20.12.2012, respondent No.6 sent provisional bill working out the provisional assessment of electricity charges as Rs. 61,130/- as well as changing the classification of the firm tariff category to non-domestic commercial category (LV5 to LV2). On 22.12.2012, the appellant firm submitted representation for correction in bill but provisional electricity charges was made final by the respondent authorities. The presentation filed by the appellant has not been decided. Untimately on 19.03.2013, the appellant firm filed a writ petition WPC No. 401/2013 challenging the act of the respondent in changing the classification of the appellant industry tariff category to non-domestic commercial tariff category along with provisional and final electricity charges which was disposed off by the Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court on the basis of alternative remedy available by the appellant to file an appeal under Section 27 of The Electricity Act. Tthe appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed by the respondent Appellate Authority by impugned order dated 08.11.2013 and amount of Rs. 4 61,130/- has been deposited by the appellant firm was held non- returnable to the appellant firm and direction has been also given to pay sum of Rs. 72,500/- against the electricity charges. The copy of the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 was not supplied to the appellant firm and notice for disconnection of electricity was sent on dated 26.11.2013 which was received by the appellant. The appellant submitted its reply and all the documents which was in his favour which was also not considered by the respondent Appellate Authority, therefore, the impugned order dated 08.11.2013 and notice dated 26.11.2013 was challenged by the instant writ petition WPC No. 1825/2013 parties name bearing "M/s Shri Gajanan Saw Mill.... Vs. C.G.State Power & others" which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is contrary, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the provisions of law, natural justice and interest of justice, which is liable to be quashed. The learned Single Judge has committed the error for not appreciating the evidence available on record as the mandatory provision of Section 27 of The Electricity Act, 2003, the provision contained in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2011 has not been followed but impugned order has been passed by the Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court which is liable to be quashed. Further, the learned Single Judge ignored the fact that provisional assessment 5 of electricity charge had been made final by assessing officer without affording without any opportunity of hearing to the appellant which is a violation of the provisions contained in Clause-11.15 and 11.17 of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2011, which is against the principles of natural justice and has also ignored the fact that appellant firm was duly provided electricity connection after completing all formalities for industrial purpose but all of sudden, spot inspection was made out and industrial tariff category to non-domestic commercial category LV5 to LV2 has been changed. The appellant immediately filed objection within 3 days for correction of bill but no action has been taken. Ultimately, the order dated 08.11.2013 and 26.11.2013 has been passed which is liable to be quashed. Spot inspection was made on 29.11.2012, without giving notice within 3 days, after passing 20 days provisional bill was given on 20.12.2012, representation filed by the appellant immediately on 22.12.2012, appeal was also filed within the limitation but appellate authority passed impugned order dated 08.11.2013 and issued a notice on 26.11.2013 which was also affirmed by the learned Single Judge. The provision with regard to the changing category of tariff from domestic to non-domestic under Clause 7.29 of The Electricity Supply Code, 2011 has not been considered, the appellant never indulged in unauthorized use of electricity and assessment of electricity charges has also been made final without taking any decision on representation/objection of the appellant and order has 6 been passed by the Appellate Authority on dated 08.11.2013 which was also affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has gone through the provisions contained in Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and provisions of 11.15 and 11.17 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2011 and has held that admittedly, some of the provisions have not been followed by the Appellate Authority while passing the order but the same has not prejudice the case of the writ petitioner further the writ petitioner has availed the other efficacious statutory remedies like raising objection as provided in clause 11.17 of the Code and he has also availed the remedy of filing appeal in pursuance of the order dated 26.08.2013 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 / 2013, as such, his entire grievances have been redressed. 7 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet