Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vs. Cesc Ltd. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 06, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1060463

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Respondent

Cesc Ltd. and ors.

Excerpt

.....was passed and served, and that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of contesting the proceedings. the document at page 20 of the opposition does not conclusively prove that the order of provisional assessment was actually served on the petitioner. only a xerox of a postal receipt has been produced to show that a copy of the order of provisional assessment was sent to the petitioner. no acknowledgement in support of the claim has been produced. the document at page 21 shows that someone received certain material for one f. saher on september 16, 2009. it cannot lead to a conclusion that the person received the order of provisional assessment on behalf of the petitioner. in my opinion, on the facts of the case, it will be appropriate to direct the assessing officer to proceed afresh with the matter. for these reasons, i set aside the final order of final assessment dated october 7, 2009, allow the writ petition to this extent and order as follows. if the provisional petitioner assessment files dated his objection september 15, to 2009 the order (page 22 of ao) within a fortnight, then the objection shall be accepted. in any case, the assessing officer shall pass the order of final assessment after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and hearing. nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from seeking reconnection according to provisions of the relevant regulations. no costs. certified xerox. (jayanta kumar biswas, j.) sn. asst.registrar(cr)

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET W.P.No.1150 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NASIMUL HUDA SHAMSHI Petitioner Versus CESC LTD.& ORS.Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS Date :

6. h August, 2012.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sk.R.Islam, Advocate For Respondents: Mr.Subir Sanyal, Mr.Ashok Jena, Advocates The Court : The petitioner in this writ petition under art.226 dated November 13, 2009 is questioning an order of final assessment dated October 7, 2009, passed by an assessing officer of CESC under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The order reveals that it was passed ex parte.

The assessing officer recorded that in spite of intimation through the order of provisional assessment, the consumer chose representation or appear for personal hearing.

not to submit any In paras.10 and 13 and also in ground VI of the writ petition, the petitioner has made out a case that no order of provisional assessment was served on him, and that the impugned order was passed without giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Referring affidavit in to the documents opposition dated at pages Februar”

8. an”

2010. of Mr.the Sanyal appearing for CESC has submitted that it is wrong to say that no order of provisional assessment was passed and served, and that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of contesting the proceedings.

The document at page 20 of the opposition does not conclusively prove that the order of provisional assessment was actually served on the petitioner.

Only a xerox of a postal receipt has been produced to show that a copy of the order of provisional assessment was sent to the petitioner.

No acknowledgement in support of the claim has been produced.

The document at page 21 shows that someone received certain material for one F.

Saher on September 16, 2009.

It cannot lead to a conclusion that the person received the order of provisional assessment on behalf of the petitioner.

In my opinion, on the facts of the case, it will be appropriate to direct the assessing officer to proceed afresh with the matter.

For these reasons, I set aside the final order of final assessment dated October 7, 2009, allow the writ petition to this extent and order as follows.

If the provisional petitioner assessment files dated his objection September 15, to 2009 the order (page 22 of AO) within a fortnight, then the objection shall be accepted.

In any case, the assessing officer shall pass the order of final assessment after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and hearing.

Nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from seeking reconnection according to provisions of the relevant regulations.

No costs.

Certified xerox.

(JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J.) SN.

Asst.Registrar(CR)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial