1 2025:CGHC:6774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4543 of 2019 • South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chief General Manager, Chirimiri Area, Chirimiri, Distt. District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya , Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Engineer (Commercial) AMB/R, CSPDCL, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Superintending Engineer (AC) CSPDCL, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Regional Account Officer, CSPDCL, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Superintending Engineer (Circle) CSPDCL, Baikunthpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6. Superintending Engineer (Vigilance) O/o Chief Vigilance Officer, CSPDCL, Danganiya, Raipur, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7. Superintending Engineer (HTFS) O/o Chief Vigilance Officer, CSPDCL, Daganiya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8. Executive Engineer (O And M) CSPDCL, Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. It has been submitted by the respondents (CSPDCL) that there is an alternative remedy available before the Appellate Authority against the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 grievance of the petitioner regarding change of tariff or supplementary bills and the petitioner may avail such alternative remedy in accordance with law, but, instead of availing such alternative remedy, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in both the matters, however, without deciding the same, an order of disconnection has been passed and, therefore, he has approached this Court and has obtained an order of stay against the disconnection. The petitioner has been regularly paying the amount of changed tariff and dispute in this respect pertains to the period of 2011-2012. The petitioner has also deposited the amount of supplementary bills and payment of rest of the amount has been stayed by this Court. 3. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially with respect to alternative remedy, I think, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for decision in his appeal. 4. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all its ground under the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in-turn the respondents authorities are directed to consider each and every aspect of the matter after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the supplementary bills and this Court has granted an order of stay vide order dated 11.12.2019 which is still continued. The respondents authorities are directed to comply with the said order of stay dated 11.12.2019 during the pendency of the appeal of the petitioner. Since the petitioner is further making payment in respect of HV-6 and it is a 3 company undertaken by Government of India as such no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall approach the Appellate Authority to pursue its pending appeal. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti