Jharkhand High Court
Sujata Picture Palace vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 31 March, 2022
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4759 of 2021
Sujata Picture Palace, P.P. Compound, Main Road, Ranchi through its
partner Shri Dushyant Jaiswal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Department of Energy, Ranchi
2. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Chairman, Ranchi
3. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electricity Supply Area, JBVNL,
Ranchi
4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, ESC, JBVNL, Ranchi
5. Electrical Executive Engineer (C&R), JBVNL, Ranchi... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, AC to GA-II For the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Ms. Surabhi, AC to Mr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. SC, JBVNL
-----
Order No. 03 Dated: 31.03.2022 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority of law, without following the guidelines as prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs for complete lockdown to contain Covid-19 pandemic resulting in closure of the cinema hall of the petitioner from 17th March, 2020 to 5th March, 2021 and again from 16th April, 2021 till filing of the writ petition, power supply bill for the months of March, 2020 to October, 2021 were raised without grant of proportionate reduction/remission in maximum demand charge as mandated in terms with Clause IX of Appendix 14 of the Tariff Order 2019-20. The petitioner has also prayed that the energy bill for the aforesaid period so far as it relates to Maximum Demand Charge be quashed and set aside. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to revise the energy bill for the period in question. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to refund the excess amount realized from the petitioner with interest in terms of Clause 10.07.4 of the Supply Code Regulation, 2005, till the amount is actually paid to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 2 No. 4653 of 2021 (POPKORN CINEMAS, Ranchi Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.).
3. The relevant part of the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in the aforesaid writ petition is quoted as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the waiver of demand/fixed charges was made for all industrial and commercial consumers of all the distribution licensees in the State of Jharkhand for the months of April, May and June, 2020 vide letter No. 1384/ACS dated 16.07.2020 issued by the Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and relying on the same, though the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi vide order dated 21.09.2020 passed in Suo-Moto Case No. 15/2020, also granted the similar relief for the said category of consumers, yet keeping in view that the petitioner could not run the cinema hall from 17.03.2020 to 05.03.2021 and again from 16.04.2021 till October, 2021 due to the restriction imposed by the government owing to Covid-19 pandemic, it should be granted the relief of proportionate reduction/remission in the maximum demand charges as mandated in Clause IX of A-14 of the Tariff Order dated 28.02.2019 issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi in pursuance of Case (Tariff) No. 08 of 2018 for the FY 2019-20.
Mr. Ashok Yadav, learned G.A-I appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, submits that since the grant of remission in the maximum demand charges to different categories of consumers owing to Covid-19 pandemic is a policy decision of the government, this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not entertain the present writ petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the grant of proportionate reduction/remission in demand charges due to restriction imposed by the government owing to Covid-19 pandemic i.e. the situation not covered in the existing tariff order, is a policy decision to be taken by the Government of Jharkhand, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.
The petitioner is however at liberty to represent the Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi on the present issue. On receipt of such representation, the Secretary of the said Department shall place the matter before the Government of Jharkhand for its appropriate decision in this regard.
The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty."3
4. Since the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is similar to that of W.P.(C) No. 4653 of 2021, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms with order dated 24.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4653 of 2021.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to represent the Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi on the present issue. On receipt of such representation, the Secretary of the said Department shall place the matter before the Government of Jharkhand for its appropriate decision in this regard.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish/NAFR