The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1921 of 2010 M/s. Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. having its works at Rauta, P.O. Marar, P.S. Mandu, through its one of the Director Rajeev Kumar Singh, Son of Kumar Mahesh Singh, Resident of Sarubera Colony, P.O. Sarubera, P.S. Kuju, O.P. Dist. Ramgarh … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board through its Chairman officiating at Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O. and P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, officiating at Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O. and P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi 3. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer cum Assessing Officer, Singhbhum Electric Supply Area, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, P.O. P.S. and District Hazaribagh 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Hazaribagh Jharkhand State Electricity Board, P.O. P.S. and Dist. Hazaribagh 5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Ramgarh, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, P.O. P.S. and Dist. Ramgarh 6. The Electrical Executive Engineer, (Com. & Rev.) Electric Supply Circle, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, P.O. P.S. and Dist. Hazaribagh 7. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Kuju, P.O. and P.S. Kuju, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, P.O. P.S. Kuju, Dist. Ramgarh, --- … Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate --- 08/25.01.2023 Learned counsels for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - (i) For commanding the Respondents to immediately and forthwith restore the power supply of the Petitioner which they have disconnected illegally on 15.04.2010 and have refused to reconnect at the strength of their report dated 15.04.2010 and the consequent F.I.R. lodged by them on 15.04.2010 which are out and out unlawful and unsustainable. (ii) For quashing of the report dated 15.04.2010, which has been prepared by the Respondents behind the back of the Petitioner or any of its representatives, as a table work and deliberately all sorts of frivolous allegations has been leveled against the petitioner without any basis with ulterior motives. (iii) For quashing the provisional assessment order/bill dated 19.04.2010 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder a huge liability has been imposed upon the Petitioner assuming the theft of energy for complete one year and while applying the load formula i.e. LxFxDxH which is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and against the applicable provisions of law and 2 several orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in similarly situated matters. (iv) For issuance of appropriate directions upon the Respondents not to coerce the Petitioner to pay the amount as mentioned in the provisional assessment order dated 19.04.2010 which is thoroughly no- nest, illegal and wrongful. (v) For quashing of the Circular No. 531 dated 29.1.2009 issued by and under the signature of the Respondent No.2, which is thoroughly without any authority and jurisdiction of the said Respondent and out and out illegal and against the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Electricity (Removal of Difficulties Order) 2005. (vi) For a declaration that the formula for compensation as contained in Cl. 16.9 of the repealed BSEB Tariff of 1993 i.e. LxFxDxH is not and in fact cannot be applicable for the purpose of assessment of the payable energy charges as prescribed under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will confine 3. his relief to prayer No. 1(iii). 4. The learned counsel submits that in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Others versus Orion Metal Private Limited and Another reported in (2020) 18 SCC 588, even in cases where there is allegation of theft of electricity, final assessment in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is required to be made and a consumer has a right to object to provisional assessment. Learned counsel submits that at the time of filing of writ petition, the law in this regard was not settled, but in view of the subsequent development the petitioner may be permitted to raise objection in connection with provisional assessment dated 19.04.2010 within a stipulated time frame and the respondents be directed to dispose of his objection to the provisional assessment in accordance with law. The learned counsel submits that the competent authority to hear the objection would be the General Manager cum Chief Engineer cum Assessing Officer, Hazaribagh. The learned counsel has submitted that it has been wrongly mentioned in the cause title ‘Singhbhum Electric Supply Area’, it ought to have been ‘Electric Supply Area,
Decision
Hazaribagh’ which appears from page No. 49 of the writ petition also. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute/object to the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that the matter has remained pending since 2010 and huge revenue of the respondents is involved, therefore, certain time frame 3 may be given so that the entire matter regarding the pending dues against the petitioner is taken to a logical end. 6. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per his instructions the petitioner has deposited Rs. 35 lacs before the respondents. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the limited submissions made on behalf of the respondents, this court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his relief only with respect to prayer no. 1(iii). Apparently, provisional assessment order/bill dated 19.04.29010 was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner did not file any objection but had filed this writ petition challenging the same and this writ petition has remained pending. However, the petitioner now submits that they be permitted to file their objection to the provisional assessment. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to file his objection in connection with the provisional assessment bill within a period of one month from today before the competent Authority. Upon filing of such objection, the competent Authority shall consider the objection of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter and communicate the reasoned order/final bill to the petitioner through speed post as well as through e-mail, the details of which will be provided by the petitioner in the objection petition itself. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all the points which may be available to the petitioner under law. This court has not gone into the merits or otherwise of the impugned provisional assessment order/bill dated 19.04.2010. 9. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)