Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patna High Court - Orders

M/S Anil Engineering Works vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 7 March, 2011

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                CWJC No.17306 of 2009
         1. M/S ANIL ENGINEERING WORKS, JHAUGANJ, PATNA CITY,
         DISTT.- PATNA, THROUGH ITS PARTNER ANAND KUMAR SONI,
         S/O SHRI B.P.SONI R/O JHAUGANJ, P.O. AND P.S. CHOUK,
         PATNA CITY, DISTT.- PATNA
                               Versus
         1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
         ENERGY DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
         2. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN,
         BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
         3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMERCIAL, BIHAR STATE
         ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
         4. THE GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF ENGINEER, PATNA
         ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA
         5. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PATNA,
         ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING (EAST), SHIVALAYA MARKET,
         ASHOK RAJPATH, PATNA
         6. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PATNA CITY, PATNA
         7. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, M.R.T., PATNA
         ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING, PATNA
                                       -----------


3.   07.03.2011

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Electricity Board.

The records reveal that in a billing dispute, the petitioner approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in Case No. 112 of 2007. Interim orders were passed on 24.8.2007 by the Forum. Aggrieved by the failure of the Board to abide by the same, the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 12409 of 2009 disposed on 6.10.2009 giving liberty to represent. The petitioner represented leading to the order dated 20.11.2009 presently impugned. This Court on 21.12.2009, passed fresh interim orders.

The un-controverted fact emerging is that substantive case before the CGRF is still pending. The battle brought to this Court was of an interim order. If the CGRF have given any interim directions, it alone was first competent to decide whether there has been compliance of its order or not. The question of judicial review may or may not have arisen thereafter.

This writ application is disposed with liberty to the parties to seek appropriate clarification/modification/interpretation of the erstwhile interim order dated 24.8.2007 of the CGRF. The relevancy and applicability of any subsequent developments shall naturally depend on interpretation/modification/clarification by the CGRF of its own interim order.

In so far as the benefit of the interim order of the Court dated 21.12.2009 is concerned, once the writ petition is being disposed to avail remedies before the CGRF, the interim order of the Court cannot continue to operate after disposal of the writ application. The parties are therefore at liberty to seek interim protection and/or direction from the CGRF itself when the interim order of the Court dated 21.12.2009, including conduct of the 3 parties thereunder in the interregnum shall necessarily arise.

The Court expects that any application for interim relief shall be considered and disposed off within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ application stands disposed.

P. Kumar                                       ( Navin Sinha, J.)