- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30th September, 2002, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 19th January, 2002 passed by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Ranchi Area Electricity Board of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. In the order dated 19th January, 2002 which the petitioner had challenged in the aforesaid writ application before the learned single Judge, the General Manager -Cum -Chief Engineer, Ranchi Area Electricity Board (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) while disposing of the appellant -writ petitioner's claim for remission etc. held finally that for the period 1992 -93 to 1998 -99 the appellant -writ petitioner, after the grant of remissions was liable to pay A.M.G charges to the tune of Rs. 6,63,499.00 and further, as the respondent No. 2 had found that the appellant was guilty of not paying/depositing the A.M.G charges in time he was liable to pay the Delayed Payment Surcharge (D.P.S.), the respondent No. 2 also held him liable to pay an amount of Rs. 8,29,040.00 on account of D.P.S. The respondent No. 2 accordingly held the appellant liable to pay a total amount of Rs. 14,92,539.00.
(2.) SEVERAL grounds were taken by the appellant before the learned single Judge while assailing the aforesaid impugned order. None of the grounds found favour with learned single Judge. In view of the order that we propose to pass, we need not go into the relevance or merits of any of the aforesaid grounds of challenge as urged by the writ petitioner -appellant before the learned single Judge, except the ground relating to the question of the right of personal hearing. Whereas before learned single Judge the appellant -writ petitioner strongly urged that as a matter of right the appellant was entitled to a personal hearing in support of its claim for remission etc., the learned single Judge was of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case and because of the information that was available or could be supplied, the denial of the right of personal hearing did not prejudice the case of the appellant -writ petitioner. Broadly we find ourselves to be in agreement with the aforesaid view of the learned single Judge and we also reiterate that in a situation like the present one the appellant -writ petitioner could not complain of denial of the right of personal hearing nor could it be permitted to complain that because of the denial of this right any prejudice we caused to the appellant. No such right as such inhered in the appellant in this case.
(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of this case however, and looking to certain figures which Mr. Mittal brought to our notice, we feel that the ends of justice shall be more appropriately served if the writ petitioner -appellant is afforded a personal hearing to canvass its point of view for a proper adjudication of the issues involved in this matter. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Electricity Board submitted that the Jharkhand State Electricity Board has constituted a Consumer Redressal Forum which is a five Member Body headed by Justice P.K. Sarkar, a former Judge of Patna High Court. According to Mr. V.P. Singh, the J.S.E.B. has constituted the aforesaid Consumer Redressal Forum to hear the grievances of all types of consumers relating to all types of disputers between themselves and the Board and that if we have taken a decision in this case that the appellant -writ petitioner should be granted a personal hearing, we may remit this case to the aforesaid Consumer Redressal Forum which, after granting a hearing to the appellant writ petitioner, shall decide all the questions involved in this case afresh.;