N.B. Hi-tech Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. .....bill and without affording any opportunity of raising objection, have disconnected the petitioner's line which has greatly affected not only the factory, but also the livelihood of several persons who are employed in the factory. it has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to face the legal proceedings and also the consequences of the legal action, but the legal action must be in accordance with law. the petitioner is an old consumer and is also ready to pay the amount assessed on the rational basis.2. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the jharkhand state electricity board (jseb), on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was found pilferaging electricity by breaking several seals of the meters and as such he is liable for disconnection under the provisions of section 135(1)(a) of the electricity act, 2003. the action of the respondents is, thus, not arbitrary or unjustified. so far as the tentative-assessment is concerned, the petitioner is entitled for raising objection and the same shall be considered and final order shall be passed in accordance with law. the petitioner has already been asked to file reply and he may approach the concerned authority of.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to restore his electrical connection which has been disconnected after inspection on 10.4.2008 on the alleged theft of electricity. It has been stated that while disconnecting the electrical line of the petitioner, the respondents have arbitrarily assessed the tentative loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 88,09,000/-. The petitioner has claimed that the monthly bill of electric consumption was less than Rs. 1,00.000/-, but the respondents while assessing the tentative loss, have arbitrarily quoted the amount of more than Rs. 88 lacs without any basis whatsoever. The respondents have also not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. 2003 and without giving any provisional bill and without affording any opportunity of raising objection, have disconnected the petitioner's line which has greatly affected not only the factory, but also the livelihood of several persons who are employed in the factory. It has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to face the legal proceedings and also the consequences of the legal action, but the legal action must be in accordance with law. The petitioner is an old consumer and is also ready to pay the amount assessed on the rational basis.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB), on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was found pilferaging electricity by breaking several seals of the meters and as such he is liable for disconnection under the provisions of Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The action of the respondents is, thus, not arbitrary or unjustified. So far as the tentative-assessment is concerned, the petitioner is entitled for raising objection and the same shall be considered and final order shall be passed in accordance with law. The petitioner has already been asked to file reply and he may approach the concerned authority of the JSEB and file reply. If the petitioner submits his reply, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. I find substance in the submissions of Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that while taking action under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondents have to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 126. No basis has been shown for quoting the tentative loss to the tune of more than Rs. 88 lacs, however, since the petitioner has been given notice and he has got opportunity to submit his reply, he can take all the points available to him before the competent authority of the JSEB. If the petitioner's reply has already been filed or is filed hereafter the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by the competent authority of the JSEB. In the meanwhile, if the petitioner deposits Rs. 8 lacs, his electrical line shall be restored forthwith, subject to the order passed by the concerned respondent on consideration of the petitioner's reply to the show cause, considering the points taken and the relevant provisions of law.