Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Challenge by the petitioner is to the order dated 27.12.2016 by which the respondentauthority has held that the petitionercompany is not entitled to remission of the Demand Charge and the Guaranteed Energy Charge under Clause4 of the bilateral agreement, for the period between 03.09.2005 to 27.10.2005.
(2.) This case has a chequered history of litigation. The petitionerM/s Gautam Ferro Alloys, a unit of M/s Bihar Foundry and Casting Ltd., is engaged in manufacture of Silico Manganese and Ferro Alloys. It was granted electric connection for a contract demand of 3000 KVA for which a bilateral agreement was entered between the parties on 25.02.2003. On the allegation of violation of certain statutory provisions, the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) vide its order dated 20.12.2004 directed closure of the petitioner's unit, and on 03.09.2005 its factory premises was sealed by JSPCB. The petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(C) No.5033 of 2005 challenging the impugned action of the respondentJSPCB and by an interim order dated 25.10.2005 the Pollution Control Board was directed to remove its seal from the factory premises of the petitionercompany within three days, and in compliance of the said order JSPCB removed its seal on 27.10.2005. Now, this period between 03.09.2005 to 27.10.2005 became a bone of contention, igniting series of litigation between the parties.
(3.) Raising a grievance against the Energy Bill issued in the month of October, 2005, the petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(C) No.5870 of 2009. Specific plea raised by the petitioner was that on account of circumstances beyond its control which would attract the Force Majeure clause as incorporated under Clause4 to the bilateral agreement dated 25.02.2003 it is not liable to pay the Demand Charge and the Guaranteed Energy Charge to the respondentDVC. The petitioner by that time had succeeded before the revisional authority. The Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand by an order dated 05.12.2006 quashed the order passed by the Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board holding that the Pollution Control Board had issued the impugned order in breach of the 2nd proviso to Section 21(4) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. This order by the Board of Revenue was one of the defences raised by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5870 of 2009. This Court accepting the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, that the issue of Force Majeure has been decided by the order of Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, by an order dated 29.03.2011 remanded the matter to the respondentDamodar Valley Corporation to decide the claim of the petitioner regarding adjustment of the Energy Bill for the period between 03.09.2005 to 27.10.2005 visavis Clause4 of the bilateral agreement. This order of the writ Court was taken in appeal by the Damodar Valley Corporation in LPA No.283 of 2011. The Letters Patent Appeal was confined only to the finding recorded by the writ Court in its order dated 29.03.2011 by which the learned Single Judge has held that the question of closure of petitioner's unit on account of Force Majeure has already been decided by the Member, Board of Revenue. This part of the writ Court's order was interfered by the Letters Patent Court and LPA No.283 of 2011 stood disposed of by an order dated 12.03.2012, in the above term. Thereafter, claim of the petitioner, on remand, was rejected by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Commercial) by a cryptic order dated 18.03.2013. By simply observing that the petitionerM/s Gautam Ferro Alloys has not been able to establish its claim as per the law, its claim was rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner came to this Court in W.P(C) No.2408 of 2013. The writ petition stood allowed by an order dated 10.09.2015 by which the impugned order dated 18.03.2003 was quashed by the writ Court and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Chief Engineer (Commercial) to pass a fresh order. Impugned order dated 27.12.2016 is the order passed in purported compliance of the writ Court's order dated 10.09.2015.;