Bhalotia Auto Products vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.—The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to amend the description of respondents in the writ petition.

Permission is accorded.

Let necessary correction be done in red - ink during the course of the day.

Enumerating various instances of illegality committed by the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL), Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that without complying the order passed by the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum, the respondents have initiated Certificate Case No.155(E)/2010 - 11 which apparently is premature. It is contended that without concretising the certificate amount, no proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa (Public Demands Recovery) Act, 1914 could have been initiated and that the demand raised by the Vidyut Nigam is patently illegal and not sustainable in law. The learned Senior counsel points out that the petitioner - Company surrendered connection to the respondent - Vidyut Nigam way back in the year, 2009.

Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy available to the petitioners. It is contended that the plea which has been raised before this Court can be raised by the petitioners in their objection under Section 9 of 1914 Act.

At this stage, Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners expresses difficulty of the petitioners and submits that the petitioner - Company would be required to deposit 40% of the certificate amount in an appeal challenging order passed by the Certificate Officer, which may not be possible for the petitioner - Company to deposit at that point in time. The learned Senior counsel, however, submits that the petitioners have no objection in participating in the proceeding of Certificate Case No.155(E)/2010 - 11. The learned Senior counsel seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file objection under Section 9 of the Act.

Having considered the rival submissions raised on behalf of the parties and after perusing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that to allay the apprehension of the petitioners a direction can be issued for concluding the proceeding within a time - frame. The learned Senior counsel states at Bar that the petitioner - Company shall file its objection under Section 9 within three weeks. The respondents are permitted to file rejoinder to the objection under Section 9 filed by the petitioner - Company within two weeks thereafter. The Certificate Officer is directed to proceed in the matter expeditiously and conclude the proceeding within three months.

It is made clear that during the proceeding of the certificate case, it shall remain open to the respondents to produce the rectified energy bill, if any. It needs no reiteration that the Certificate Officer shall afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner - Company and pass order strictly, in accordance with the Bihar and Orissa (Public Demands Recovery) Act, 1914. It is made clear that withdrawal of the writ petition is only on the technical ground and it shall not prejudice the writ - petitioner before the Certificate Officer. It is further made clear that before deciding objection under section 9, the certificate amount shall not be recovered from the petitioner - Company. Interim order dated 22.03.2011 stands vacated.

The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.