Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Rustam vs Cesc Limited & Anr on 3 February, 2021
06
03.02.2021
Ct. No.23
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 8142 of 2020
Md. Rustam
Vs.
CESC Limited & Anr.
Mr. Bidyut Halder
Mr. Indranil Halder
... For the petitioner
Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
... For CESC Limited
The petitioner was served with a provisional
assessment order dated 13th June, 2019 and a final
assessment order dated 13th July, 2019 passed under the
provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") in respect of
unauthorised use of electricity made by the petitioner.
CESC Limited, the licensee, also made a complaint under
Section 135 of the said Act. The petitioner obtained bail on
the condition of paying Rs.4,00,000/-. The petitioner paid
Rs.2,00,000/- but did not pay the balance amount and, as
such, warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner.
Subsequently, CESC Limited applied before this Court for
cancellation of the bail. By a judgment and order dated
18th June, 2020, it was held that on deposit of the entire
amount of loss assessed finally by CESC Limited, the
petitioner will be allowed to enjoy the bail privilege
otherwise the bail order shall stand cancelled and the
2
petitioner be taken into custody so as to prevent
recurrence of offence. The petitioner, I am told, has not
paid the entire finally assessed amount of Rs.11,13,034/-.
In the instant application, the petitioner is seeking
a mandatory order in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents, that is CESC Limited, not to
demand the entire amount of Rs.11,00,000/-. The
petitioner is also seeking quashing of the provisional
assessment order dated 13th June, 2019 and the final
assessment order dated 13th July, 2019.
So far as the mandatory direction in the nature of
mandamus restraining the respondents CESC Limited from
demanding Rs.11,00,000/- is concerned, the petitioner is,
in an indirect way, inviting the writ Court to interfere with
the order dated 18th June, 2020 passed in CRM 10803 of
2019 (Asok De v. The State of West Bengal). In order to
interfere with the said order dated 18th June, 2020, this
Court has to then sit on appeal over the said order dated
18th June, 2020 which is impermissible in law.
So far as the quashing of the provisional
assessment order is concerned, there is a provision laid
down in Section 126 of the said Act. The petitioner could
have objected to the provisional assessment. The assessing
officer, in such case, would have considered the petitioner's
objection while passing final order of assessment. The
petitioner has not done so.
So far as the challenge to the final order of
assessment dated 13th July, 2019 is concerned, the
petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section
127 of the said Act. The petitioner was required to file an
appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The petitioner has not done so. The petitioner cannot be
allowed at a belated stage after having committed a default
in paying the amount directed by the Court to enjoy the
bail privilege to avail the appeal remedy.
The application is thoroughly misconceived and is
dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/-. The cost has
to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, West
Bengal, within 24th February, 2021.
The writ petition is made returnable on 25th
February, 2021 only for the purpose of ascertaining the
payment of cost.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
