M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M.S. Mittal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Board.
(2.) IN this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.1.2005 passed by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi whereby petitioner 's case being Case No. 41/2004 has been dismissed and the order dated 22.6.2004 passed by General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Electric Supply Area, Dhanbad has been affirmed. Petitioner 'scase is that it received bills on account of Annual Minimum Guarantee (in short AMG) for the period 1992 -93, 1993 -94 and 1994 -95. On receipt of the bills, petitioner alleged to have written a letter dated 30.7.1993 and also submitted its claims for relief in AMG for the period 1992 -93. Similarly petitioner alleged to have filed applications under Clause 13 of the HT Agreement for remission in AMG for 1993 -94 and 1994 -95. Petitioner 'sfurther case is that it decided to close down its factory and for the a notice dated 14.12.1994 was sent to the respondent -Board. Subsequently, the line of the petitioner was disconnected but the Board also levied charges for the notice period for 1996 -97 for a sum of Rs. 3,61,077/ -. All the claims under Clause 13 of the HT Agreement has been rejected by the competent authority, namely, General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Electric Supply Area, Dhanbad on 22.6.2004. General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer held that claims under Clause 13 of the HT Agreement were not filed within the time. Thereafter, petitioner moved Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Being Case No. 41/2004. The Forum comprising of a retired Judge of this Court as a Chairman and two members have considered the claim of the petitioner in detail and recorded a finding that the petitioner did not file remission claim petition under Clause 13 of the HT Agreement for the period 1992 -93 to 1994 -95. The Forum also disbelieved the genuineness of the copy of the notice and the receipt. The concluding portion of the finding of the Forum reads as under : "In the instant case the petitioner has only challenged the order passed by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the respondent that this Forum is not entitled to hear the matter on merit. However, on careful perusal of the annexures i.e. 2, 3, and 4 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remission claims for 1992 -93, 1993 -94 and 1994 -95 have been filed within the stipulated period of time, we do not find force on the submission as because we neither find that the remission claim petition has been filed under registered post or the same have been got receipted properly in the officer of the Electrical superintending Engineer. These aforesaid annexures only bear a receipted signature of a person which can neither be identified nor bears any designation of the person who is supposed to have received the petition on any official seal and thus the same can not be taken for granted as to have been receipted in the office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer. As such it is difficult for us to authenticate the genuineness of the receipt. In the circumstances, due to lack of proper evidence we are unable to set aside the impugned order passed by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer in respect of remission claim for the year 1992 -93, 1993 -94 and 1994 -95 and find the same as correct and justified. So far the AMG for the period 1995 -96 and 1996 -97 is concerned, we have already discussed in detail in Para 5.3 above and since the "Notice" claimed to have served by the petitioner on 14.12.1994 could not be substantiated to have been filed as required under Clause 9 read under Clause 15 of the H.T. Agreement, this Forum could not accept that any such notice for determination of agreement has been served/sent by the petitioner and as such it is held that the AMG bill for the period 1995 -96 and also for 1996 -97 is justified and the petitioner is liable to pay the same.With the above observations the petition is disposed of."
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board filed a certificate case for the recovery of all the dues for the period 1992 -93 being Certificate Case No. 19/Elec./ 1998 -99. In 2002, petitioner also filed a Title Suit No. 39/2002 challenging the certificate proceeding on various grounds.;