ROLL WELL ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No. 2 of 2001,02 instituted at the instance of Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply, Ranchi for an amount of Rs. 43,43,019/ -. He has further challenged the Demand Notice dated 10th September, 2001, issued by the Certificate Officer, Ranchi Electric Supply Area, Ranchi, under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act), as laso the order dated 16th June, 2005, whereby and whereunder, the Certificate Officer has issued distress warrant against the petitioner.

(2.) AS the case can be disposed of on short points, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.

(3.) DIFFERENT writ petitions being CWJC Nos. 1070 to 1090 of 1999 (R) were preferred by the petitioner against different orders, passed by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, South Bihar Chhotanagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement, relating to different financial years. Those writ petitions along with other similar case were heard and disposed of by the learned single Judge on 15th June, 2001, following the decision, rendered in the case of Jamshedpur Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in 2000(1) All PLR 231. The learned single Judge remitted the matter to the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer for fresh decision on the question of proportionate remission in payment of AMG charges in the light of the decisions, rendered by the Jharkhand High Court and the Supreme Court. The said order was challenged by the Electricity Board in L.P.A No. 430 of 2001 and analogous cases, wherein, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10th March, 2003 while did not choose to interfere with the order of remand, made the following observations: 8. The learned single Judge observed that the Board was empowered to formulate such conditions in order to safeguard its interest and also to provide mode of disposal of the claims and held that Notification dated 29.7.1994 and its clarificatory letter dated 13.7.1996 issued by the Board were perfectly legal, valid and binding on the consumers. Time limit for filing claim under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement fixed by the Board was justified and in accordance with law. Prescribing the period of more than 30 minutes interruption in supply of electricity for the purpose of granting remission in payment of AMG charges was wholly unjustified and against the law laid down in Suprabhat Steel Limited v. Bihar State Electricity Board 1994 (1) BBCJ 369. While making the claim under Clause 13 for proportionate remission in payment of AMG charges, the consumer has to deposit 50% of the dues along with the claim. 9. The Electricity Board has, therefore, preferred appeals, against part of the impugned order, whereby only the interruption for more than 30 minutes duration were to be considered for the purpose of remission was held to be unjustified and the consumers preferred appeals against the observations/findings of the learned single Judge that Regulation in question issued by the Board under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act was legal and the limitation prescribed for filing claim under Clause 13 and asking to deposit 50% amount of the bill by way of condition to consider the objection under Clause 13 were also legal and justified. 10. After hearing the parties at length and on considering the various pronouncements of the Apex Court and the High Courts, we are in agreement with the decision in Jamshedpur Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board 2000(1) All PLR 231 and find that the present matters are covered by the said decision and as such the learned single Judge rightly decided the writ application by the impugned order in these appeals and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer and decision on the question of proportionate remission in payment of the AMG charges in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements referred to in Jamshedpur Flour Mills (P) Ltd. (supra).