Patna High Court - Orders
Saday Krishna Kanoria vs The Bihar State Electricity Bo on 13 August, 2013
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2216 of 2010
======================================================
1. M/S Marwari Awas Griha, Fraser Road, Patna, Through Its Partner,
Vinod Krishna Kanoria S/O Late Gopi Krishna Kanoria R/O Uday Bhawan,
Fraser Road, P.S. Kotwali, Distt.- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna,
Through Its Chairman
2. The Finance Controller (Revenue), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
3. The General Manager Cum Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply
Undertaking, Mangles Road, Patna
4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply
Undertaking (West), Mangles Road, Patna Null Null
5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Dak
Bunglow, Patna
6. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Electric
Supply Division, Dak Bunglow, Patna .... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5294 of 2011
======================================================
1. Saday Krishna Kanoria S/O Shri Krishna Kanoria Resident Of Uday
Bhawan, Fraser Road, P.S- Kotwali, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
Through Its Chairman.
2. The Finance Controller (Revinue), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The General Manger Cum Chief Engineer Patna Electric Supply
Undertaking, Mangles Road, Patna.
4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply
Undertaking (West), Mangles Road, Patna.
5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Dak
Bunglow, Patna.
6. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Electric
Supply Division, Dak Bunglow, Patna. ... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5310 of 2011
======================================================
1. M/S Marwari Awas Griha, Fraser Road, Patna, Through Its Manager,
Om Prakash Sharma S/O Late Bhuramal Sharma, Resident Of B-204,
Pushpanjali Lok, Ashiana Nagar, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna,
Through Its Chairman.
2. The Finance Controller (Revenue), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The General Manager Cum Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply
Undertaking, Mangles Road, Patna.
4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply
Undertaking (West), Mangles Road, Patna.
5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Dak
Bunglow Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2216 of 2010 (3) dt.13-08-2013
2/5
6. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Electric
Supply Division, Dak Bunglow, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5416 of 2011
======================================================
1. Uday Krishna Kanoria Son Of Shri Vinod Drishna Kanoria Resident Of
Uday Bhawan, Fraser Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
Through Its Chairman
2. The Finance Controller (Revenue) Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
3. The General Manager Cum Chief Engineer Patna Electric Supply
Undertaking, Mangles Road, Patna
4. The Electrical Superintendingh Engineer Patna Electric Supply
Undertakingh (West), Mangles Road, Patna
5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Dak
Bunglow, Patna
6. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Electrical
Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Electric Supply Division,
Dak Bunglow Patna .... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.2216 of 2010)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh
(In CWJC No.5294 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh
(In CWJC No.5310 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh
(In CWJC No.5416 of 2011)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL ORDER
***************
03. 13.08.2013All the four writ application arise from an adjudication, which has been made by the General Manager of the erstwhile Bihar Electricity Board on the direction of the Court, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8352 of 2004; 8811 of 2004; 9240 of 2004; and 9464 of 2004 In all the writ applications Annexure-8 is the order, whose Patna High Court CWJC No.2216 of 2010 (3) dt.13-08-2013 3/5 enforcement or interpretation, the petitioners are looking for.
Short facts are that all these petitioners were consumer of NDS-III category. Bills were raised against them in February, 1998, which became contentious, because the petitioners felt that there was some error in the bills raised against them, since there were no outstanding bills at the relevant time, which could warrant imposition of Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS).
All these writ applications were heard and disposed off with a direction upon the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of PESU to decide the matter after hearing the parties.
The General Manager has rendered his opinion in terms of Annexure-8. The subsequent revised bills with remission had been issued to the consumers in terms of Annexure-9, but petitioners feel that the respondent- authorities have again misinterpreted the decision of the General Manager by not granting remission in DPS across the board in all subsequent bills. He has reason to make such submission on the basis of so called ratio rendered in the case of Gaya Roller Flour Mills versus Bihar State Electricity Board, reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 715.
The ratio of the case, cited by the petitioners, has Patna High Court CWJC No.2216 of 2010 (3) dt.13-08-2013 4/5 relevance, provided the facts are identical to the case, so decided by the Learned Single Judge. In the present case there was limited dispute, which was raised by the petitioners before the respondents with regard to the bill of February, 1998 and the amount of DPS shown therein by the respondents, due to outstanding shown in the bills. The General Manager after examining all the bills has given a clear finding that there was no outstanding dues, whatever be the stand of the Electrical Executive Engineer, because the records did not show any outstanding after regular payments of bills by the petitioners. He, therefore, did hold that any imposition of delayed payment surcharge of the amount, so shown against the bills and any subsequent imposition of DPS on that amount, shown as outstanding, will have to go.
The stand of the counsel for the petitioners is that all delayed payment surcharge, shown subsequent, will have to be waived on the principle decided by the Learned Single Judge in Gaya Roller Flour Mills (supra).
Stand of the respondent-PESU is that the issue was imposition or reflection of DPS in the bills of February, 1998. Since this amount was reflected as outstanding in the subsequent bills, naturally they too invited levy of DPS. It is this component, which has been now set aside or Patna High Court CWJC No.2216 of 2010 (3) dt.13-08-2013 5/5 waived by the General Manager and not other components, if there has been some delay or otherwise which led to imposition of delayed payment surcharge of other amounts.
The order of the General Manager is unambiguous. The issue raised by the petitioners before Electrical Executive Engineer and this Court earlier as well as the General Manager, was the incorrect bills raised for the month of February, 1998, showing a particular amount as delayed payment surcharge. If that delayed payment surcharge was carried over and more delayed payment surcharge was included on that outstanding amount, due to pendency of the dispute before various authorities, it is that component which is required to be waived or interfered with, which has rightly done by the General Manager. If the petitioner is looking for immunity from payments of all DPS surcharge, under other heads, that is not the ambit of the adjudication, which has been made by the General Manager.
Writ applications have no merit. All the four writ applications are, therefore, dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) SKM/-