SANTOSH ISPAT, A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, S K PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2019-4-66
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on April 25,2019

Santosh Ispat, A Proprietorship Firm, Through Its Proprietor, S K Pandey Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 21.07.2017 passed in Case No.EOJ 04/2017 by the Electricity Ombudsman whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Vidyut Upbhokata Shikayat Niwaran Forum, Hazaribagh, hereinafter referred as the Forum, has been declined and to be entertained on the ground that the appeal has been filed after delay of the limitation period as prescribed under the provision of Clause 14 of the Consumer Electricity Amendment Act, 2011.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have issued electricity bill on 05.03.2011 therefore the same has been sought to be quashed along with the prayer to compensate the petitioner adequately by directing the respondents to pay Rs.1 crore by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to the Forum, wherein the order was finally passed on 25.01.2017 by which the forum has set aside the bill amounting to Rs.11,18,571.00/- with a direction upon the respondents to recast the final bill by considering the following anomalies:- (a) Notice period will be framed as per Clause 7.5 of Electrical Supply Code Regulation 2005 as laid down at Sl. No.6 of observation of Forum (b) Interest on Security deposit be recalculated as per observation of Forum at Sl. No.6 and should be adjusted in the final bill of the petitioner. It has been observed therein that the petitioner does not come under the purview of Clause 13 of the agreement as the said clause will be applicable only when guaranteed energy charge settled.
(3.) The petitioner being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, has invoked the jurisdiction of Electricity Ombudsman under the provision of Clause 30 of the supply code but the Ombudsman has rejected the appeal vide order dated 21.07.2017 on the ground of limitation since the appeal has been filed after 106 days from the communication dated 28.01.2017 against the order passed by the Forum, Hazaribagh, dated 25.01.2017.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.