PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs: (a) For a declaration that decision to stop all the payment of 10th plan APDRP (Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme) by an executive order of the respondent no.1 contained in Board's Resolution No.591 dated 09.03.2010 as evident from the order dated 26.06.2012 contained in resolution vide Annexure-13 to be per se arbitrary and against public interest; (b) And for a further declaration that this indecision has resulted in delayed implementation of APDRP Projects meant for efficient transmission system, while it has been closed in the entire country and ultra vires powers of an Electricity Board as under Section 18 (1) (a) and 18 (1) (c) of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 as also evasive of audit objection dated 17.03.2011 , regarding decision dated 25.08.2010, it cannot be permitted in further fiddling with its decision as it causing wastage of availability of electricity to public and public exchequer as well.
(2.) The facts, as emanated from the writ application, in a nutshell is that petitioner is a registered electrical contractor having tons of experiences. The Ministry of Power, Government of India under the 10th Plan during 2002-03 made a vision for projects of electricity for efficient energy transmission, which is known as Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme (APDRP). Out of 18 selected APDRP Project of JSEB under 10th plan, the petitioner was given work order of Pakur, Chas, Hazaribagh and Dumka on different dates and has completed the work and is certified as such. Guarantee period of performance is admittedly over. Except the work of Dumka, the works in other projects have been completed. The JSEB has also submitted its completion status report in the year 2009 and it was required to send utilization certificate to the Ministry of Power, Government of India vide letter dated 26.03.2009 by the N.T.P.C. as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. As the projects were financially closed by its advisor on 26.03.2009, a new plan was named as restructured APDRP. Unverified news report was published alleging that there is irregularity in grant of work order in APDRP projects in general and the work orders were given at inflated rates. Instead of verifying the same, the Chairman sent a letter to the Director General (Vigilance) being letter dated 06.06.2009 as per Annexure-3 to the writ petition and on the basis of the said letter preliminary enquiry was conducted. In the meantime, after letter dated 06.06.2009, the Board was reconstituted and it was resolved on 09.03.2010 that all the payments of APDRP 10th plan shall be withheld till its decision is taken on closure and completion of all the projects as per Annexure-5. Thereafter, committees were constituted by the Board to give status report of the projects and it has been reported by the committee that the work of Pakur assigned to the petitioner has been completed before the resolution No.591 as per technical specification and handed over. Thereafter, meeting was held on 25.08.2010, wherein it was observed that there were three categories of projects. The project which was completed 100% is placed at serial no.1 and Pakur is placed in that category. Though, consequent report was also submitted by the Committee regarding completion of projects and recommendation was made for final payment, but no decision was taken for the reasons best known to the respondents. Thereafter, Board's resolution dated 08.11.2011 was made formulating points for payment. A detailed presentation was made by the Chief Engineer, APDRP for taking a decision regarding pending payment. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary, Energy Department also wrote a letter to the Additional Director General (Vigilance) on 24.03.2012 stating inter alia that the projects assigned to the petitioner was completed. The ADGP, Vigilance wrote back to the Principal Secretary on 20.04.2012 stating the P.E. No.13/2009 complete and report has been submitted to the Government, though F.I.R has been recommended yet Vigilance has no objection, if payment of completed project be made as evident from letter dated 24.03.2012 vide Annexure-12 to the writ application. Thereafter, the letter was placed before the Board along with the detailed presentation in the 101th meeting of the Board in Agenda No.956/2012-13 held on 15.05.2012. However, the decision on the agenda was deferred on that date and again it was placed on 26.06.2012. On that day one of the members of the Board asked about the query raised on 08.11.2011 i.e. status of Vigilance case and it was decided to examine the contents before taking a final view of the resolution as evident from Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for payment of the admissible dues, the petitioner being left with no efficacious and alternative remedy, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance with the aforesaid prayer.
(3.) Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing submits that Electrical Superintending Engineer, JSEB, Hazaribagh Circle issued no demand certificate vide letter dated 30.04.2010 stating therein that the performance guarantee parameters has been established successfully for more than 12 months after put in commercial use, enabling to issue "no demand certificate" and the commissioning and final acceptance certificate has been issued on 30.04.2010 and the completion certificate has been issued on 30.05.2012. In spite of completion of the projects, since no payment was made, the petitioner-company submitted representation to the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board vide Annexure-22 for payment of admitted bills. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the notification dated 06.01.2014 the Jharkhand State Electricity Reforms Scheme, 2013 has been made. In the said scheme the reforms has been made to "Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd" and Clause 2 (h) and Clause 4(1) relates to assets and liabilities of the State. Clause 5 (5) pertains to transfer and vesting of the functions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the minutes of meeting held on 25.08.2010 in the chamber of Chairman for review of APDRP Projects, which have not completed 100% work have been paid like Dhanbad, but the petitioner's projects have been subjected to untold financial stringency due to non-payment of admitted bills. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on perusal of Annexure-13 it would be crystal clear that total fund for completed project in Pakur Town is 5.98 Crore, Chas Town is 5.24 Crore, Hazaribagh Town is 1.77 Crore.;