Ram Chandra Saw Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2006

¶3

Ram Chandra Saw .... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

2.The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.

¶7

3.Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Engineers Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi through its Chairman.

¶8

4.General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Electric Supply Area, Dhanbad. 5.Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Electric Supply Circle, Dhanbad.

¶9

6.The Certificate Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Dhanbad.

¶10

.. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. K. Pasari, Advocate For the JUVNL/JSEB : Mr. Moti Gope, SC

¶13

15/ 15.04.2024 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in IA no. 43/2023 filed for modification of the order passed by this Court dated 28.02.2022 wherein petitioner was directed to file a substitution petition with respect to the petitioner.

¶15

2. It is submitted that under mistaken information, it was informed by the learned counsel that petitioner had died and later on it transpired that it was not the petitioner, but his brother who died during the pendency of the instant Writ Petition.

¶16

3. Having considered the submissions, the order dated 28.02.2022 is modified to the extent that petitioner is not required to file any substitution.

¶17

4. IA no. 43/2023 is disposed of.

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 4797 of 2006.

¶19

5. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No.112 of 2001-02 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.1,22,884/towards the energy dues for the period 3/97 to 2/99 and with further prayer for quashing the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad whereby the learned Deputy Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the Certificate Officer.

¶20

6. Petitioner had taken the electrical connection with load of 10 HP falling within the purview of LTIS consumer’s category for establishment of storage of “Oil extracted by solvent extraction process”.

¶21

7. The erstwhile Government of Bihar with a view to promote industrial growth in the State of Bihar, came out with Industrial Policy in the year 1995 which inter-alia provided that :-

¶22

Clause 9.6 :- Exemption from payment of Minimum Guarantee Charges for new Industrial units having connected load upto 500 KVA or equivalent H. P. as per billing norms.

¶23

8. Further vide Memo No.3493 dated 03.09.1996 issued a notification under Section 78A of the Electric Supply Act wherein decision has been taken to exempt from levy of minimum guarantee charges for the period of five years to the industrial unit commencing production between 01.09.1995 to 31.08.2000 and whose connected load was up to 500 KVA.

¶24

9. Subsequent thereto vide Circular dated 11.10.1996 directed all the circles for not levying minimum guarantee charges from the industrial units commencing production from 01.09.1995 to 31.08.2000.

¶25

10. The main contention of the petitioner is that despite the said exemption, the respondent-Board instituted Certificate Case No. 112 of 2001-02 for the recovery of energy dues for the period i.e. March, 1997 to February, 1999. In this regard, it is further submitted that electrical connection was discontinued from March 1998. Petitioner is entitled to refund of the 40% amount in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in laid down in 2001 (4) SCC 2010.

¶26

11. The Annexure 2 to the writ petition is the statement showing details of the energy charges and their miscellaneous charges outstanding against the petitioner for the period i.e. June, 1997 to February, 1999. During this period except for the month of July, 1997 the consumption per month is of 700 units which comes within the minimum guarantee charges.

¶27

12. The main contention of the respondent(s) as stated in the counter affidavit by the Respondent Electricity Board is that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy under Section 62 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 for filing a revision application before the Board of Revenue. Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.3567 of 2006 [M.P. Bansal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] was disposed, by this Court as the petitioner does

¶28

have statutory remedy to prefer a revision application against the impugned order.

¶29

13. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is apparent that the counter affidavit was filed way back in the year 2006 in which the plea of available alternative remedy had been raised, but despite this Petitioner continued with the instant writ petition.

¶30

Under the circumstance the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶31

The Petitioner shall however be at liberty to move the revisional forum within four weeks of the order, which will be disposed within three weeks of the same. It is clarified that law of limitation will not come in way in admitting the revision application, in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition.

¶32

In the meantime, no coercive measure shall be taken for realization of the balance amount from the Petitioner.

¶33

Sandeep/

¶34

Uploaded.

Ram Chandra Saw v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Ram Chandra Saw v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Ram Alias Santosh Alias Bhola Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Biru Alias Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Takbeer Khan Alias Taqbir Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Barun Singh Hembram and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Nandlal Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand