SAHODAR PRASAD MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by way of Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment of respondent No.5, Mr. H.B. Lal, on the post of Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board on the ground inter alia that the Board has been constituted in a most arbitrary manner and respondent No.5 is a person of doubtful integrity and is aged about 90 years, has been appointed as Chairman of the Board. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notification dated 17.9.2008 whereby respondent No.5 was appointed as Chairman and further for a direction upon the respondents to reconstitute the Jharkhand State Electricity Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act and keeping in view the National Electricity Policy under the Electricity Act, 2003 .

(2.) PETITIONER claims himself to be a Vidyut Shramik Leader and colleague of Mr. Sideshwar Prasad Sinha who earlier filed Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (PIL) No. 6774 of 2002 for a direction upon the respondents not to appoint corrupt persons as a Chairman and Members of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (in short ˜JSEB Board'). But before the case could be taken up, the JSEB Board was reconstituted. After reconstitution of the Board, another Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (PIL) No.3106 of 2003 was filed challenging the constitution of the Board and during pendency of the writ petition, the Board was again reconstituted by removing the persons against whom complaints were made. Various allegations and insinuations have been made in the writ petition against respondent No.5 who was earlier appointed as Chairman of the Board and during his period, there had been shortfall in generation, transmission and supply of electricity. It is 2 W.P. (PIL) No.5067 of 2008 stated that in the year 2004 respondent No.5 was appointed as Chairman of the Board which was challenged in a writ petition and pursuant to direction of this Court, the Board was again reconstituted and respondent No.5 was removed from the post of Chairman. The contention of the petitioner is that again by the impugned notification dated 17.9.2008, the respondents -State appointed respondent No.5 as Chairman of the Board.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, stated inter alia that frivolous petitions in the name of Public Interest Litigation, have been filed several times challenging the constitution of the Board. According to the Board, respondent No.5 after successful completion of service, superannuated from the Board as Technical Member. He rendered his excellent service in the Board and received appreciations. It is stated that respondent No.5 was not removed as a Chairman of the Board rather he himself resigned from the post of the Chairman. According to the Board, under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, there is no age limitation prescribed for appointment of a member or Chairman of the Board.