High CourtsSingle Bench

Kailash Chandra Jain vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 30 September 2002 · Citation: (2002) 09 JH CK 0063

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 4284 of 2002
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 366 words

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—According to petitioner an inspection was carried out in his premises on 7th June, 2002 showing total of 32 K.W. against sanctioned load of 8 K.W. On the basis of the inspection the impugned bill for the month of June, 2000 issued showing energy bill of Rs. 1.25.909/- under Clause 16.9 of the tariff. In the meantime, the State Electricity Board issued circular on 28th July, 2001 stating that idle and unused plug points should not be included in the assessment of total load.

2.

The petitioner earlier raised objection against the inspection report vide letter dated 21st July, 2000, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Ranch! ordered the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Ranch! on 1st September, 2000 to make a fresh inspection the Electrical Superintending Engineer, in his turn vide letter dated 7th February, 2001 directed the Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Electric (Supply) Division No. 1, Ranchi to re-inspect the premises of petitioner.

3.

The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter no re-inspection of the petitioner''s premises has been made in spite of intimation to the Chairman (Tech) Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi made on 26th March, 2002.

4.

It is alleged that the impugned bill under Clause 16.9 has been issued without giving any show-cause notice to the petitioner.

5.

The respondents in their counter-affidavit has not disputed the facts aforesaid. It is stated that the surprise inspection was made on 7th June, 2002 and the load of the premises was found to be 32 KW by APT-Team. Hence, as per Clause 16.9 of the tariff the bill for excess un-authorized load of 24 KW i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,25,909/- was levied in the bill of June, 2000.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as it appears that the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Ranchi has already directed to make re-inspection, the case is remitted to the respondents with direction to act as per the direction given by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Ranchi and pass appropriate order in respect to grievance of petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

7.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.