Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010015182020 2025:GAU-AS:6925 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/635/2020 UTTARAN GRAM UNNAYAN SANGHA REGISTRATION NO. RS/NAL/246/F/95 OF 2008 UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT, 1860, REP. BY ITS SECY.- MS. GITIKA BARUAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O- SRI ANJAN DEKA, R/O- VILL. UTTAR BARSIRAL, P.O. DHAMDHAMA, P.S.- BARAMA, DIST.- BAKSA, PIN- 781349, ASSAM. VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (COM), APDCL, 5TH FLOOR, BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781008. 2:CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER RANGIA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL SANTIPUR RANGIA PIN- 781354 ASSAM. 3:ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER NALBARI ELECTRICAL DIVISION PAILA APDCL NALBARI PIN- 781335 ASSAM. 4:SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER NALBARI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION-1 APDCL NALBARI PIN- 781335 Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D CHOUDHURY, MR. S N KRISHNATRAYA,MR S DIFUSA,MR N RAY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 28-05-2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P.Sharma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the letter dated 05.06.2018, issued by the Executive Engineer, Rangia Electrical Circle, LAR, APDCL, whereby the operation of Collection Based Distribution Franchise (CBDF) agency of the petitioner under Rangia Electrical Circle was suspended with immediate effect. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled for an amount of Rs. 7,43,817/- as arrear of revenue against the bills of the consumers in addition to the security deposit amounting to Rs. 3,76,914/- for such franchisee and therefore, the claim for payment of the aforesaid amount is also made in this writ petition. 4. The respondent has filed an affidavit disputing the claim of the aforesaid amount and contended that the amount to which the petitioner is entitled is “-“ Rs. 58,239/- (minus 58,239/-). It is further contended that in terms of Clause 15 of the CBDF agreement entered on 01.12.2016 between the petitioner and the respondent APDCL, the disputes and the differences of the parties are firstly to be Page No.# 3/3 amicably settled, through consultation and negotiations by the AGM of the franchised area and if the same remains unsettled, it is to be referred to the Chief Executive Officer of Franchised area for amicable settlement and if such dispute still remains unresolved, the same shall be referred to the General Manager (Com-Rev), APDCL for final settlement. Accordingly, it is contended by the respondent APDCL that this writ petition should be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy under the agreement itself. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of such stands, this writ petition may be closed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in terms of Clause 15 of the CBDF agreement dated 01.12.2016. Mr. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, APDCL, has also not objected to such prayer. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to avail his remedy permissible under Clause 15 of CBDF agreement dated 01.12.2016. JUDGE Comparing Assistant