R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act engaged in casting of automobile components for supply it to M/s. Telco Limited and other automobile industries was having connected load of 495 KVA. For manufacturing automobile components, the Petitioner does have casting furnace of about one tonne and hence, the Board directed the Petitioner to produce necessary documents and to execute agreement.
(2.) INSTEAD of entering into an agreement with the Board, the Petitioner filed a writ application, vide C.W.J.C. No. 3585 of 1999 challenging the new tariff. The said writ application was dismissed on 16.1.2003. Thereupon, revised energy bill amounting to Rs. 1,62,79,009.00 was raised for the period from 09/99 to 04/2003 in HTSS tariff. Thereupon the Petitioner preferred L.P.A No. 56 of 2003 against the order dated 16.1.2003 but the Petitioner did not succeed as the L.P.A was dismissed on 5.9.2003. Again revised bill amounting to Rs. 1,73,93,830/ -was issued for the period from 9/99 to 8/2003 under HTSS tariff with contract demand of 600 KVA. The Petitioner instead of making payment of the amount, moved to the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P No. 20070 of 2003. On 11.3.2005 an order was passed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court to restore the connection of the Petitioner forthwith which had been disconnected long back subject to Petitioner 'sclearing the arrears. Pursuant to that order, electric connection was restored on 15.3.2005 on making payment of outstanding amount. Ultimately that S.L.P was disposed of on 19.7.2007. In spite of long drawn aforesaid litigation, the dispute again arose when, as per the case of the Petitioner, the Electricity Board raised a bill wrongly on account of various counts including delayed payment of surcharge which was objected to but the authority of the Board did not consider the matte in the light of the objection raised by the Petitioner. The Petitioner finding no way out preferred an application before the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum which was disposed of on 10.10.2007 remanding the matter to the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Respondent No. 2 to dispose of the same within a period of one month. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 2, vide its order dated 25.3.2008 directed the authorities of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to revise the bills of the Petitioner.
(3.) IT is also the case of the Petitioner that the Electrical Superintending Engineer did not carry out the order passed by the General Manage -cum -Chief Engineer, Respondent No. 2. Being fed up with the attitude of the authority of the Board, the Petitioner thought it proper to go for disconnection and hence, wrote a letter on 6.5.2008 requesting to the Board to disconnect the electrical connection and to raise final bill so that payment be made. But that was never done, though in the meantime, the Petitioner in terms of the directives given by the General Manager entered into an agreement for supply of connected load of 500 KVA. The Petitioner again on 7.1.2009 made a request to raise the bill in accordance with the direction of the General Manage but the authority did not pay any heed and, therefore, decision was taken for switching over to another licensee, namely, JUSCO but in absence of 'no objection certificate ' to be granted by earlier licensee on payment of entire dues, the Petitioner became helpless to have electric energy from another licensee. However, on 31.1.2009 electric power was disconnected but bills were never revised, as a result of which, the payment could not be made and thereby the Petitioner became handicapped in having new connection from the JUSCO on account of no objection certificate from the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Ultimately, on 28.12.2010 a bill amounting to Rs. 6,11,39,729/ -was served which was not in terms of the order passed by the General Manager. Immediately the Petitioner raised objection on this account but the authority instead of doing needful in the matte initiated a certificate proceeding for recovery of the said amount. Therefore, the Petitioner filed a writ application before this Court, vide W.P.(C) No. 935 of 2011. On filing said writ application, the Petitioner came to know that the Board has also filed a writ application after almost 3 years against the order of the General Manager whereby he had directed the authority to revise the bill. this Court after hearing the matter,stayed further proceeding of certificate case, vide its order dated 22.3.2011. At the same time, the case was ordered to be heard along with the Writ Application bearing No. 5202 of 2010 preferred by the Board. Thereupon, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board for granting no objection certificate so as to he may have electric connection with other licensee, JUSCO and this request seems to have been made in view of the order passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission on 20.7.2007 which was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal of Electricity, New Delhi with certain modification.;