- (1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing of letter dated 10.10.2006 issued under the signature of Resp. No. 4 whereby he rejected the objection filed by the petitioner and refused to interfere with the provisional bill dated 14.2.2006. Petitioner further prays for quashing of the subsequent order dated 12.09.2007 issued under the signature of Resp. No. 3 whereby the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order of Resp. No. 4 has been dismissed. Petitioner further prayed for quashing of provisional bill dated 14.2.2006 raised under Clause 16.9(A) of 1993 tariff on the basis of inspection report dated 13.2.2006. Petitioner further prayed that the amount of Rs. 40,02,405/- deposited by it, on the basis of provisional bill dated 14.2.2006 be refunded and / or adjusted.
(2.) Petitioner's case in brief is that an inspection conducted by the Officers of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 13.2.2006 and it was found that the meter installed in the petitioner's premises has been tempered. It is stated that it is evident from inspection report that body seal, terminal seal bit, optical seal bit, MDI seal bit etc are O.K. , but in spite of that in the said report, respondents alleged that the petitioner had committed theft of electrical energy. It is stated that on the basis of inspection report, a provisional bill issued on 14.4.2006, under Clause 16.9 of 1993 tariff, to the tune of Rs. 40,02,405/- . It is then stated that the petitioner under coercion and to save its electrical connection, paid aforesaid bill on 15.2.2006 vide money receipt no 993890. It is stated that before issuing the provisional bill, no proceeding initiated under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further stated that the provisional bill issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner filed its objection under section 126 of the Electricity Act against the bill dated 14.2.2006, which was dismissed by the Resp. No. 4 vide order dated 10.10.2006, though he has no jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid objection. It is further stated that against the order dated 10.10.2006, petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad vide his order dated 12.09.2007, though he is not the appellate authority. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order dated 10.10.2006 and order dated 12.09.207 are without jurisdiction. It is further stated that against the order passed by Resp. Nos. 3 and 4, petitioner filed an application before the Vidut Upbhokta Shikayat Nivaran Forum and the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2008. Against that order, petitioner filed appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman which was also dismissed. Thus, present writ application filed.
(3.) It is submitted by Sri D.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the notification of the Government of Jharkhad, dated 26.08.2004, Electrical Executive Engineer of the concerned Division has power to make final assessment under section 126 of the Electricity Act and Chief Electrical Engineer -cum- Chief Electrical Inspector , Department of Energy will be the appellate authority under section 127 of the said Act. It is submitted that Resp. Nos. 3 and 4 have no jurisdiction to entertain appeal and objection respectively. Thus, the order passed by them is wholly without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Respondent Board/Company is liable to refund the amount i.e. Rs. 40,02,405/-, which was deposited by the petitioner under coercion.;