The petitioner calls in question the correctness and legality of impugned bill issued by respondents, whereby the petitioner is required to pay a sum of Rs,28,292 on the grounds which are purely factual and cannot be determined without investigation and enquiry. Such investigation cannot ordinarily be made under Article 199 of the Constitution.
2. Even otherwise, the petitioner has adequate alternative remedy within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution to approach either the Electric Inspector under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 or the Court of general jurisdiction, viz. Civil Court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is the Electric Inspector or the Civil Court in the respective sphere of their jurisdiction which are competent to investigate the questions of fact and determine the controversy. Recourse to this Court in these circumstances is illegal.
3. Additionally, if so advised, the petitioner can also make a representation to the Executive Engineer, which officer is equally competent to investigate the questions raised and decide them after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/affected party. The said officer is directed to dispose of the representation expeditiously. During the pendency of representation the Authority may also consider the suitability of grant of interim relief. Remaining dissatisfied with the decision in the department, the petitioner can judicially approach the Electric Inspector or the Civil Court, as indicated above.
4. With the above observation/direction this petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti.