M/S Karan Earth Movers Thr Prop. P M Mhatre vs. The Executive Engineer, Mah. Stae Electricity Dist. Co. LTD. And Anr

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Karan Earth Movers, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the oral direction by Respondent No. 1 (The Executive Engineer, MSEDC Ltd.) to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- as non-compliant with the Electricity Act, 2003, and for the return of Rs. 8,93,523/- with interest. The Petitioner acquired a leasehold plot from Shri Amrutlal Raichand Shah via a Deed of Assignment dated November 9, 2023. This deed stipulated that all statutory dues and liabilities up to the date of assignment, including electricity charges, were to be borne by the assignor. The assignor had outstanding electricity dues pertaining to industrial activities. The Petitioner, as the assignee, was to bear liabilities from the next day. The assignor has not disputed these dues. The Court noted that the Petitioner's grievance against the assignor cannot be entertained in a writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's grievance, which stems from the Deed of Assignment where liabilities were clearly demarcated, cannot be entertained in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that the Petitioner, as the assignee, agreed to the terms of the Deed of Assignment, which placed the responsibility for prior electricity dues on the assignor. The Petitioner's claim that they were unaware of these dues was not accepted. The Court found that any dispute concerning the electricity bills issued to the Petitioner or actions taken in relation to them should be pursued through the appropriate statutory authorities established under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court explicitly stated that it could not entertain the writ petition. All contentions of the Petitioner were kept open to avail of a statutory remedy. The Court made no specific findings on the validity of the oral direction or the refund claim, as it chose not to entertain the petition on procedural grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the oral direction by Respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- is in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and regulations thereunder concerning consumer no. 000090983687? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the return of Rs. 8,93,523/- along with interest at 9% from the date of deposit till realization? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner sought a declaration that the oral direction for payment was unlawful and prayed for the refund of an amount deposited. The Petitioner's case implicitly relies on the principle that demands must be statutory and not oral, and that the Petitioner should not be burdened with prior dues of the assignor, despite the deed of assignment. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning suggests that the Petitioner's grievance is primarily against the assignor, as per the Deed of Assignment, and that any dispute regarding the bills or actions taken should be addressed through the appropriate statutory authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003.