M/S Yerik International vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 17691 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Yerik International vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 23 September, 2024

CWP-12818-2017 (O&M) 1

2024. PRHC 328864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.202 CWP-12818-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.09.2024

M/s Yerik International .... Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.
3 2k 3

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the provisional assessment order, dated 30.03.2017, Annexure P-3, and the final assessment order, dated 09.05.2017, Annexure P-11, passed by the second respondent inter alia on the ground that the officer-Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) was not competent to pass the orders.

2. Learned counsel for the first and second respondent contends that the petitioner has, in fact, not attached complete copies of the impugned orders. The provisional assessment order, dated 30.03.2017, has been attached along with written statement as Annexure R-2, which shows it has been issued with the approval of Engineer-in-Chief/DS, Central Zone, Ludhiana. Similarly, the complete copy of final assessment order, dated 09.05.2017, Annexure R-4, also shows that it has been passed by Chief Engineer/Op-cum-Assessing Authority, Central Zone, PSPCL, Ludhiana. These orders are appealable before the appellate authority under Section 127

MANINDER

2024.09.26 17:18 Of the Electricity Act, 2003. I attest to the accuracy an

authenticity of this

order/judgment.

CWP-12818-2017 (O&M) 2

2024: PHHC128564 5

3. It is not disputed that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the competent authority against the impugned assessment orders.

4. As pleaded by the petitioner, he did not avail the alternate remedy of appeal as that would have been too harsh and onerous due to the requirement of depositing fifty per cent of the assessed amount before filing the appeal. A condition provided under the statute to file an appeal cannot be termed harsh or onerous, nor can it be a ground to refuse availing the remedy. Since the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy to challenge the impugned orders by filing appeal under Section 127 of the Act, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, if so advised.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed

of as having been rendered infructuous.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 23.09.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned__:: Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No