Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board (Now Jseb) and ors.

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........jharkhand state electricity board-hereinafter to be referred as jseb), contained in annexure- 1, 2 series and 3 series to the writ petition. further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to raise fresh bills, taking into consideration the fact that the bills have been raised by the respondents without any basis and without taking into consideration the meter reading and the inspection report.2. according to the petitioner, he got an electric connection from the respondent-board for his shop of generator parts, measuring an area of 10' x 14' vide consumer no. csbi b-543 category cs 2 at p.b. road, jugsalai, jamshedpur. he used the electric points like 2 bulbs of 100 watt, one fan of 60 watt and two tube-light of 40 watt i.e. total 340 watt since 1989. grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents raised electricity bills of the period, in question, arbitrarily, though from the year, 1944 up to march, 1997 they were raising bills showing consumption of 50 units per month on average basis.3. it is alleged that the bills for the months of april, 1997 onwards, for example the bills of april, 1997 november, 1998 and january, 1999 have been raised @ 500 units per month without any basis and without meter reading.4. according to the learned counsel for the board, the electric connection of the petitioner was disconnected on account of non-payment of bill amount for rs. 77041.88 paise. on inspection it was found that the petitioner was drawing electricity directly by hooking with the electrical line. the bill was, therefore, raised for such illegal withdrawal of electrical energy.5. in the present case, it is not possible for this court to determine as to whether the bills for such months were correctly raised or not. further, i find that the bills were raised since the year, 1997 onwards but not representation was preferred before the concerned chief engineer, as per 1993, traiff. after number of years, while the petitioner has challenged the bill of.....