Chandigarh's right to recover power dues from IAS officer Sanjay Popli: Consumer panel

Chandigarh, September 8

While observing that the Electricity Department, UT, has the right to recover dues, the State Consumer Commission has set aside an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed on a complaint of Punjab IAS officer Sanjay Popli on February 15 this year.

While quashing the demand raised by the Electricity Department for power dues of Rs 1,23,124, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, had directed it to pay a compensation of Rs 15,000 to Popli. The Electricity Department had challenged the order by filing an appeal before the State Consumer Commission.

In the appeal, the department stated that the old bill was raised for the government house allotted to him earlier in Sector 7, Chandigarh. The department said though the complainant applied for issuance of an NOC and permanent disconnection of the electricity supply on October 22, 2003, he continued to occupy the said house till September 21, 2004, and vacated it only after the authorities initiated proceedings under the Public Premises Act. So, the amount of dues transferred in the new bill was correct in terms of Clause 7.40 of the Supply Code Regulation, 2018.

It was further asserted that the complainant received the said bill of Rs 54,809 and acknowledged the liability by making part payment of Rs 6,000 on October 13, 2004.

On the other hand, Popli stated in the complaint that a sum of Rs 48,681 was pending since 2004 and annual surcharge was being added without any intimation to him. He received a bill dated May 28, 2019, for an amount of Rs 1,18,306. Popli stated that the demand of the alleged sundry charges after a lapse of 15 years was illegal and arbitrary and he was not liable to pay the same.

After hearing of the arguments, the State Commission comprising president Raj Shekhar Attri and members Padma Pandey and Rajesh K Arya observed that the appellants had the right to recover the dues from the respondent and the provisions of Clause 7.40 of the Regulations had rightly been resorted to by the appellants by transferring the amount to another electricity meter installed in the name of the consumer.

“The impugned order passed by the District Commission is therefore based on wrong appreciation of evidence and law on the point and thus suffers from illegality and set aside,” the panel observed.