SAILESH KUMAR PRASAD Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the parties, that a detailed order was passed in this case on 26.7.2010, after which a counter-affidavit has been filed on 30.8.2010. For ready reference the said order is quoted below:

(2.) The detailed reasoned interim order made it quite clear that it was in the larger public interest as also in the interest of the Appellant before us, that the counter-affidavit was directed to explain certain things, which have been underlined/highlighted in the order quoted above. The order having been passed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the Respondents, and the counter-affidavit having been filed more than a month after the Court's order, it can reasonably be assumed that the person swearing the counter-affidavit was aware of the Court's order. That person claims himself to be a law officer of JSEB. Yet we find the counter-affidavit to be wholly evasive on the issues which the Court required to be explained. In fact there seems to be a deliberate attempt to distract the Court from those issues which are vital in the larger public interest. For example the counter-affidavit merely says that the inspection of the Appellant was as a random check, without specifying the criteria of determining who will be subject to random checking, and more precisely why the Appellant was picked out for the random check, that two in the backdrop of the pending litigation between the Appellant and the Board, before the Consumer Court. A counter-affidavit filed in writ petitions must be fair and should make an honest and full disclosure, more so when it is filed by the 'State'. It must state not only the 'truth', but the 'complete truth'.

(3.) Therefore, a supplementary counter-affidavit will now be filed by the same Law Officer of the Respondent-Electricity Board disclosing properly and completely with supporting documents and circulars, as to what is the policy regarding random inspections of domestic consumers, and at what level it is decided which domestic consumer should be inspected by way of the random inspection, because it has direct nexus with right of privacy of citizens, especially of ladies, who are alone in the house, as happened in the facts of the present case. The inspection made in this case during the pendency of the matter before the Consumer Court will also be explained in complete detail so as to satisfy this Court that it was not a pressure tactics by the Board's Officers or a vindictive action.