- (1.) The respondent Board has refused to issue an N.O.C. to enable the petitioner consumer to shift to an alternative licensee supplier of electricity. For refusing this kind of liberty to the consumer and trying to hold on like a monopoly over the consumer is to be strictly justified by strong reasons by the Board. Normally Courts do not appreciate monopolies.
(2.) One dispute between the petitioner and the Board is said to be pending pending before the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, pursuant to an order of this Court. The amount involved is approximately Rs.15,00,000/-(rupees fifteen lacs only). For the entire amount aforesaid, a bank guarantee has already been furnished before the respondents by the petitioner. This fact has been admitted by the respondents, therefore, the pendency of that dispute before the Chairman can not possibly be a justification for refusing the N.O.C. and for not permitting the petitioner to shift to the alternative licensee.
(3.) A rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner has been filed today. Its copy has also been served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner today. The said reply encloses as Annexure-'A' a decision taken by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. Although no specific amount or issue has been mentioned in the said annexure, but on its basis it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is some other dispute regarding A.M.G. charges for the period 2000-2001. In reply to a specific question by the Court, as to how much would be the amount or liability of the petitioner which would ultimately arise if this alleged dispute of A.M.G. charges is decided against the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that he has received telephonic information a short while ago that the amount is in the range of rupees three lacs.;