Sajaul Hasan vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution LTD.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's case does not fall within the exceptional categories that warrant entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternative statutory remedy is available. Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in The Executive Engineer and Ors. v. Seetaram Rice Mill and Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. Commercial Steel Limited, the Court emphasized that while the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, writ petitions are typically entertained only in exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of a statute. The Court noted that the assessment order was preceded by an inspection, a provisional assessment order, and multiple opportunities for personal hearing, and the challenge in the writ petition was primarily factual, denying the allegations. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 17, 2023, passed by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd., demanding Rs. 52,20,380/-. The respondent alleged that the petitioner's electricity connection was feeding supply to an inactive meter space. The petitioner denied these allegations, stating that the respondent's claims were unsubstantiated by any material or documents, including the inspection report. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The assessment order was passed under Section 126 of the Act after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy is available under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the writ petition is maintainable because the respondent's allegations are unsubstantiated and lack supporting material, suggesting a potential excess of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice, which are exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contends that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is a clear alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, against the assessment order passed under Section 126 of the Act. They rely on the principle that High Courts generally do not entertain writ petitions when such statutory remedies exist.