S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING the entire proceeding in Certificate (Electric) Case No. 05 of 1996 -97 and seeking quashing of order dated 05.08.1998, whereby objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Pubic Demand Recovery Act, 1914 was dismissed in limine, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 -company was granted electric connection on 09.03.1992 which was disconnected on 15.10.1992 on the ground that the petitioners' unit has remained non -operational. The petitioners submitted application dated 08.06.1993 to the Electricity Board for waiver of the annual minimum guarantee charges however, no action was taken by the respondent -the then Electricity Board. The petitioners approached the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply, Daltengonj for re -connection of the electricity line and electrical line was re -connected on deposit of Rs. 75,000/ - by the petitioners however, it was again disconnected on 18.06.1994. A demand for Rs. 11,82,416.90/ - was raised on 16.10.1995 and the proceeding commenced before the Certificate Officer, Palamau for recovery of the said amount. The certificate proceeding was initiated on 18.02.1997 and the petitioners appeared in the said proceeding on 06.05.1997 and filed objection under Section 9. The case was fixed on several dates and finally on 05.08.1998 objection under Section 9 was dismissed. Thereafter, file was transferred to the Certificate Officer, Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi however, no notice was issued to the petitioners. On 13.06.2015 when police visited the house of petitioner No. 2 and handed a copy of letter No. 282 dated 25.01.2003 to his family members the petitioners came to know about warrant of attachment issued by the Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) MR . Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the petitioners refers to proceeding before the Certificate Officer and submits that no notice was issued to the petitioners after the certificate case was transferred to Ranchi. It is contended that though, the certificate case was transferred way back in the year, 1998 and the proceeding in the certificate case continued behind the back of the petitioners, no step was taken by the certificate holder to serve notice upon the petitioners. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent -Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited submits that the petitioner -company is a defaulter and the petitioners have not disclosed what steps they took after 05.08.1998 to ascertain the orders passed in Certificate (Electric) Case No. 05 of 1996 -97.;