Partly allowed

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

Jharkhand HC4 May 2022LPA/363/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand held that the reliance on Shyam Lal case allowing final assessment applications to Special Courts was no longer good law per the Orion Metal case. The Court mandated a post-decisional hearing for the appellant to object to the provisional assessment calculation within eight weeks, which shall be decided by the Electrical Superintending Engineer.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellant to file objections to the provisional assessment calculation within eight weeks to be decided by the Electrical Superintending Engineer.

Ms Laxmi Ispat Udyog through One of Its Director… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

L.P.A No.363 of 2015

¶4

[Against the judgment dated 17^th June 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2929 of 2008]

¶5

M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its factory at Village Bandi, Digdu, Town Jhumritelaiya, PS-Chandwara, Dist. Koderma through one of its Director Sri Anupam Agarwal, son of Sri Gyan Chand Agarwal, resident of Nawabganj, PO & PS-Hazaribagh Sadar, Town & District-Hazaribagh. … Appellant

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Hazaribagh Electricity Supply Area, Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Limited (formerly known as Jharkhand State Electricity Board), PO-Hazaribagh, PSHazaribagh Sadar, District-Hazaribagh.

¶10

3.Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Limited (formerly known as Jharkhand State Electricity Board), PO-Hazaribagh, PSHazaribagh Sadar, District-Hazaribagh.

¶11

4.Electrical Executive Engineer, Hazaribagh Electric Supply Area, Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Limited (formerly known as Jharkhand State Electricity Board), PO-Hazaribagh, PS-Hazaribagh Sadar, District-Hazaribagh. … Respondents

¶12

(Through V.C)

¶13

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

¶14

For the Appellant : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate Mr. Naveen Toppo, Advocate Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶18

M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog which was the writ petitioner is the appellant before us.

¶19

2 L.P.A No. 363 of 2015

¶20

2. W.P.(C) No. 2929 of 2008 which was filed by the appellant was dismissed by an order dated 17^th June 2015. The writ Court has held as under:

¶21

“ So far final assessment order is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner that said assessment order is illegal as the same has been made on the basis of the amended provisions of Electricity Act, 2007, whereas the case of the petitioner is required to be assessed on the basis of unamended provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶22

It has been held in Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Company vs. J.S.E.B. reported in (2013) 3 JLJR 435 that in case of theft, after final assessment order, if a consumer has any grievance against the same, he can file application before the Special Court for final assessment.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid decision, I am not inclined to interfere with the assessment order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.

¶24

However, I give liberty to the petitioner to file application before the concerned Special Court (Electricity) for final determination of electricity charges under section 154(5) of the Electricity Act. If such application is filed, the Special Court shall decide the same at the earliest, because the case relates to the year 2005.”

¶25

3. Before the writ Court the Company had an interim order passed vide order dated 20^th June 2008 by which the respondents were directed not to realize the bill dated 23^rd May 2008 subject to deposit of Rs.18 Lakhs. It is admitted at Bar that the Company has paid Rs. 18 Lakhs out of the total amount of Rs.2,14,65,480/-. It further appears that final form has been submitted in the criminal case instituted against the Director of M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog but no information is available as regards any further proceeding in the criminal case, that is to say, on the basis of any protest petition filed by Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited.

¶26

4. The main objection before the writ Court raised by the appellant was to the communication dated 5^th March 2008 by which the provisional assessment order made under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was withdrawn and a fresh provisional assessment was made in terms of 3^rd proviso to section 135 (1-A) vide order dated 10^th May 2008.

¶27

5. The writ Court did not advert to the challenge made by the Company to the order dated 10^th May 2008 and dismissed the

¶28

3 L.P.A No. 363 of 2015

¶29

writ petition observing that in view of the judgment in “M/s Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Company Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors. 2013 (3) JLJR 435 the consumer can file application for the final assessment order before the Special Court.

¶30

6. The aforesaid observation by the writ Court flowing from the judgment in “M/s Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Company” in view of the judgment in “West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors. v. Orion Metal Private Limited & Anr.” (2020) 18 SCC 588 is no longer a good law. Moreover, any executive or quasi judicial order which ensues civil consequences to the other party must be made following the rules of natural justice which in the present case may be in the shape of a post-decisional hearing. Though there is no provision for affording opportunity to the assessee before provisional bill on the allegation of theft of electricity is raised under 3^rd proviso to section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, we are inclined to grant one opportunity to the appellant- M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog to submit its objections to the provisional assessment dated 10^th May 2008 within eight weeks which shall be dealt with by the Electrical Superintending Engineer by a separate order, which shall remain open to challenge by the appellant, if so advised. This of course would be a limited opportunity mainly regarding calculation error and/or method of calculation not provided under the Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2005.

¶31

7. With the aforesaid liberty to the appellant, L.P.A No. 363 of 2015 stands disposed of.

¶32

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶33

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶34

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 4^th May 2022 R.K/Amit N.A.F.R

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Laxmi Ispat Udyog through One of Its Director Sri Anupam Agarwal v. Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Ltd. 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 D S Associates through Its Proprietor Sri Mali Ram Naredi Vs Jharkhand Urjs Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

MD Rabbani Mian Vs Union of India through Ministry of Power