Disposed

Subodh Kumar Prasad v. Jahrkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2021WPC/2537/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery of alleged electricity theft amounts and billed arrears via writ petition. Court granted liberty to file fresh representation before the Electrical Executive Engineer, directing him to decide within two months after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file fresh representation before Respondent No. 3; Respondent directed to decide within two months after hearing.

Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs Jahrkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No.2537 of 2020

¶3

¶4

Subodh Kumar Prasad

¶5

.......... Petitioner.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (earlier known as Jharkhand State Electricity Board), through its Chairman, Engineers Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶8

General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Ranchi Electric Supply Area, Kusai Colony, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶9

Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi Electric Supply Area, Ranchi Electric Supply Division, Ranchi.

¶10

Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Ratu Electric Circle, District Ranchi.

¶11

.......... Respondents.

¶12

----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Sr. S.C., JBVNL -----

¶13

Order No.04 Date: 06.01.2021

¶14

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to how the figure of Rs.4,33,818/- has arrived at for the purported theft of electricity in the tenanted premises of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to if at all any assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be carried out in view of the restriction imposed under Section 126(3) & (4). The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to if at all any amount on account of discontinued electricity of the year 1998 is recoverable from the petitioner, that too when the petitioner was not the consumer, but his deceased father was.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an F.I.R. being Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar)P.S. Case no.353 of 2010 dated 27^th May, 2010 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, alleging inter alia that the electrical connection against Consumer no.R1LT/8/RD 9257-LTIS was discontinued with effect from November, 1998 and an outstanding amount of Rs.2,66,510/- was existing on the date of disconnection. It was also mentioned in the first information report that the then Jharkhand State Electricity Board sustained a loss of Rs.4,33,818/-,

¶17

-2-

¶18

determining the load of the said connection to be 18 H.P. It is further submitted that a proceeding under the Electricity Act, 2003 was supposed to be initiated by the Authorized Officer of the licensee (JBVNL), however, till date no action has been taken, which has rendered the petitioner remediless. The petitioner has represented before the respondent nos.2 and 3 in this regard, but no action has taken by the said respondents.

¶19

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Sr. S.C., JBVNL, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent no.3 on the present issue, an appropriate decision will be taken within a time frame.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, without entering into merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.3. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.3 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶22

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶23

Sanjay/

Subodh Kumar Prasad v. Jahrkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Kumar Prasad v. Jahrkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ve Commercial Vehicle Limited through Authorized Representative Laxman Singh Raghuwanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Badrinath Shahdeo Vs Revenue Department

Boulevard Enterprises through Its Partner Namely Sandeep Murarka Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salim Mian Vs Ahmad Hussain And Ors.

Deepika Tigga Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Permila Devi Alias Pramila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand