M/S Kohinoor Steel Private Limited Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Anutosh Majumdar Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman

¶1

 2025:JHHC:10262

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 576 of 2025

¶3

M/s. Kohinoor Steel Private Limited, having its office at 326, Ashiana Trade Centre, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, through the Resolution Professional Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarawagi represented by its authorized signatory Mr. Anutosh Majumdar … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶6

General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Electricity Supply Area, Jamshedpur

¶7

Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Chaibasa

¶8

Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commissioner through its Secretary, 2^nd Floor, Sainik Bhawan, Main Road, Ranchi

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav,SC, JUVNL Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to SC For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate -----

¶12

07/03.04.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the

¶13

order dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Members, Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (VUSNF), Chaibasa at Jamshedpur in Case No. 04/2016, whereby the said case has been disposed of on the ground that similar matter is pending adjudication before this Court. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking remission in monthly KVA charges for the hours of load shedding/interruption for the period commencing from January, 2010 onwards has been rejected.

¶14

2. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to raise monthly energy bills strictly in accordance with the Tariff Order published by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, wherein the Commission has held that Clause 13 cannot be deleted from the HT Agreement in terms

¶15

¶16

 2025:JHHC:10262

¶17

whereof the consumer is entitled for pro-rata reduction in the monthly demand charges based on actual supply hours to the consumer in any month. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to carry out adjustment of the monthly energy bill of the petitioner’s unit for the period commencing from January, 2010 onwards in terms with Clause 13 of HT Agreement.

¶18

3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, submits that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring appeal against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the VUSNF, Chaibasa at Jamshedpur in Case No. 04/2016 before the of Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand, which has been created under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage.

¶19

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring appeal against the order passed by the VUSNF, Chaibasa at Jamshedpur before the of Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition on merit at this stage.

¶20

5. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take recourse of the statutory appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand.

¶21

6. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with aforesaid liberty.

¶22

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶23

Manish

¶24

M/S Kohinoor Steel Private Limited Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Anutosh Majumdar v. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kohinoor Steel Private Limited Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Anutosh Majumdar v. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Ranchi

Indian Bank, Represented through Its Chief Manager, Mr. Suresh Chandra Chauhan Vs State of Jharkhand

Mahadeo Prasad Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anoop Orion Franclin Bakhla Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitu Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner-Cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi