Dismissed

Ms D S Associates through Its Proprietor Sri Mali Ram Naredi v. Jharkhand Urjs Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 May 2022LPA/145/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant had paid the disputed amount before the hearing and sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach other forums for further remedies.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal with liberty to avail other legal remedies.

Ms D S Associates through Its Proprietor Sri Mali… — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

L.P.A No.145 of 2015

¶4

M/s. D.S. Associates, a proprietorship firm having its factory at Village Bhuiyadih, PO Bhadudih, Distt. Saraikela-Kharsawan through its proprietor Sri Mali Ram Naredi, son of late Dwarka Prasad Naredi, resident of Dwarka Bhawan, Jugsalai, Town Jamshedpur, PO & PS Jugsalai, Distt. Singhbhum (East)

¶5

… Appellant Versus

¶6

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (Earlier known as Jharkhand State Electricity Board) through its Chairman having its office at Engineers Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, Town Ranchi PO & PS Dhurwa, Distt. Ranchi.

¶7

General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Electric Supply Area, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (Earlier Jharkhand State Electricity Board), Co-operative Bank Building, PO & PS Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Distt. Singhbhum (East).

¶8

3.Electrical Superintending Engineer, Singhbhum Electric Supply Area, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (Earlier Jharkhand State Electricity Board), AIADA Bhawan, Adityapur, PO & PS Adityapur, Distt. Saraikela-Kharsawan.

¶9

4.Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Circle Chandil, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (Earlier Jharkhand State Electricity Board), Adityapur, PO & PS Adityapur, Distt. SaraikelaKharsawan.

¶10

5.Rajendra Ram son of not known to the petitioner resident of not known to the petitioner, presently working for gain as Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Circle Chandil, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (Earlier Jharkhand State Electricity Board), Adityapur, PO & PS Adityapur, Distt. Saraikela-Kharsawan.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

(Through V.C)

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶14

For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondent-JUVNL : Mr. M.K. Roy, Sr. S.C

¶16

¶17

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶18

M/s. D.S. Associates approached the writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 1769 of 2010 seeking a direction upon the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) for restoration of electricity supply at its premises which was disconnected on 14^th April 2010.

¶19

2 L.P.A No. 145 of 2015

¶20

2. Challenge made before the writ Court primarily centered around the inspection report which according to the writ petitioner was made at the instance of Rajendra Ram who was Assistant Electrical Engineer at the relevant time. Several prayers were made before the writ Court, however, challenge was not made to the provisional assessment order and the electric bill served upon the Industry and, therefore, the writ Court as would appear from paragraph no.16 of the order dated 19^th February 2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1769 of 2010 dismissed the writ petition for the said

¶21

reason.

¶22

3. The writ Court has held as under :

¶23

“16. In the instant case, petitioner has not challenged the provisional assessment order or the bill issued in pursuance of provisional assessment order. Vide I.A. No. 3417 of 2010, the petitioner only prayed that the provisional assessment bill be kept in abeyance till disposal of this case, which was allowed vide order dated 18.04.2011 by a Bench of this Court, subject to the final decision of this case.

¶24

17. So far the contention of Mr. Mittal that in the instant case, the procedure contained under section 126 of the Electricity Act will be applicable is not acceptable, because the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Company. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors reported in 2013 (3) JLJR-435 has held that in case of theft section 126 of the Electricity Act has no application, rather provision of 135 of the Electricity Act will apply. The aforesaid decision attains finality, as the S.L.P. filed against aforesaid judgment dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has held that in the case of theft of electricity the assessment will be made as per the procedure prescribed under section 135 of the Electricity Act read with Clause 15.8(ii) to (vi) of the Electricity Supply Code Regulation 2005 (as amended by Jharkhand State Gazette Notification no. 501 dated 01.09.2010).

¶25

18. From perusal of the supplementary bill annexed with I.A. no. 3417/2010, it appears that provisional assessment made applying the formula of LxHxFxD, which is in consonance with the schedule of the Regulation, 2005. Thus, I find no illegality in the said assessment order. However, if petitioner has any grievance against the assessment order or bill issued in pursuance of that , it is open for him to challenge the same before the Special Court under section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶26

19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in this writ application, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 34,88,308/-, ( which has been kept in abeyance by this court vide order dated 18.04.2011) within one month from today, otherwise it will be open for the Electricity Board or the successor company to take all coercive steps, including disconnection of electric connection of petitioner's factory, for realization of aforesaid amount.”

¶27

4. Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the order dated 18^th March 2015 passed in the present Letters Patent Appeal and makes a statement,

¶28

3 L.P.A No. 145 of 2015

¶29

on instructions, that pursuant to the said order entire amount has been paid by the appellant.

¶30

5. In view of the aforesaid development in the case, Mr. M. S. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present Letters Patent Appeal with liberty to the appellant to avail such other remedy as are available to the appellant in law.

¶31

6. Mr. M.K. Roy, the learned counsel appears for Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited.

¶32

7. In the peculiar facts of the case, we would accede to the prayer made on behalf of the appellant permitting the Industry to avail all such legal remedy as are available to it in law and would further clarify that withdrawal of the present Letters Patent Appeal would not cause any prejudice to the appellant M/s. D.S. Associates, as we have not observed anything on the merits of the pleas raised by the appellant in the present proceeding.

¶33

8. Accordingly, L.P.A No. 145 of 2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶34

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶35

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶36

R.K/Amit

Ms D S Associates through Its Proprietor Sri Mali Ram Naredi v. Jharkhand Urjs Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms D S Associates through Its Proprietor Sri Mali Ram Naredi v. Jharkhand Urjs Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Das Dey Vs Smt Shilpa Devi

The Principal Secretary Deptt of Agriculture Anila Husbandry And Cooperation and Anr. Vs Rama Shankar Prasad

Mansukh Lal Kotecha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Laxmi Business and Cement Company Ltd. through Its Authorised Signatory Sri Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

Ms Laxmi Ispat Udyog through One of Its Director Sri Anupam Agarwal Vs Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman and Ors.

MD Rabbani Mian Vs Union of India through Ministry of Power