Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners while making an elaborate argument to strengthen the case of the petitioners has firstly referred to the Distribution Franchisee Agreement for distribution of power for Jamshedpur Circle which would be frequently referred to by him as well as by the learned senior counsel for the respondents as the various provisions enumerated in the agreement forms the basis of argument by both the sides. Reference has been made to Article 5.1 A of the DFA which is with respect to implementation of Restructured Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme (RAPDRP) wherein responsibilities were upon the Distribution Franchisee for preparation of detailed project report for implementation of Part B Programme in consultation with JSEB. It was also the responsibility of the Distribution Franchisee for timely implementation of such projects and the progress of the project had to be intimated to JSEB on a monthly basis. This Article further envisages duties upon JSEB to set up a joint monitoring mechanism along with the Distribution Franchisee to ensure both timely implementation as per plans and course corrections, if any. Submissions have been advanced that the duties and responsibilities of the Distribution Franchisee and the JSEB has been clearly demarcated which reveals that in order to complete the project successfully it had to be a mutually concerted and cooperated effort from both the parties. Learned counsel has thereafter referred to Article 5.6.5(B) and (C) which is with respect to consumer complaint handling and consumer services and the entire consumer complaint handling procedure on approval by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission had to be complied with by the Distribution Franchisee. Article 6 of the DFA deals with metering and measurement at input point and it was the Distribution Franchisee who was to install and operate the check metering system in accordance with this article and Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2006. The miscellaneous provisions have been referred to in Article 9 of the DFA and Article 19.3 and 19.4 have been taken note of by the learned counsel for the petitioners which relates to the respective rights of the parties and performance or compliance with their respective obligations under the agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to appendix 1 of the DFA which gives the details of distribution infrastructure of Jamshedpur Circle for the financial year 2010-11 and the said details were subject to verification through joint audit. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to few of the provisions of the DFA has tried to lend focus on the fact that for successful completion of the project responsibilities and duties cast upon the petitioners as well as the respondents were mutually inclusive. The subsequent cancellation of the DFA by issuance of the impugned letter dated 06.05.2015 was 'malice in law' on the part of the respondents. To further bolster the contention of the petitioners that the entire action of the respondents were indeed a 'malice in law', he has referred to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents which contain various communications as well as the minutes of meetings held between the representatives of both the sides on several occasions. He has also made reference to the minutes of meeting held on 01.07.2013 wherein discussions were made about the intimation given by the independent auditor about the billing date of Jamshedpur Circle which was available for the period April 2010 to October 2010 in the Txt format which opens in Notepad only. Discussions were also made about the actual time which shall be taken by the independent auditor to complete the assigned work relating to opening level of AT & C losses and collection efficiency and determination of average tariff for the base year of 2010-11. The meeting dated 12.07.2013 was held to discuss the progress made by the independent auditor as well as with respect to the issues related to handing over of distribution network to the Distribution Franchisee in Ranchi and Jamshedpur Circle. Learned counsel has also referred to the letter dated 15.07.2013 which is an internal communication of the respondents and which related to handing over of the billing data in soft copy to M/s. Ernest & Young for the year 2010-11. The issue of progress made by the independent auditor as well as handing over of distribution network to Distribution Franchisee in Ranchi and Jamshedpur Circle was once again the subject-matter of the meeting held on 26.07.2013. Constitution of the meeting dated 12.07.2013 was done, as would be evident from the letter dated 30.07.2013 for examining the proposal submitted by the Distribution Franchisee on the issue of taking over the distribution network of Jamshedpur Circle pertaining to field level issues such as installation of input meter at interface point and other field level issues. Further meeting followed and in the meeting dated 24.09.2015, the petitioner no. 1 on the difficulty of change of data in the required format had offered assistance in the conversion process and the IT personnel of the petitioner no. 1 was requested to look into the issue and find out whether it is possible to convert the data in desired format or not. The issue of metering as well as other issues were discussed in the meeting held on 12.11.2013 and it was insisted upon by the petitioner no. 1 that JSEB should take a practical decision regarding installation of interface meters. Further meeting followed as difficulties had arisen with respect to finalisation of methodology for final input price, but the main hindrance was the component to be taken in the amount collected. The independent auditor was directed to submit the initial report incorporating the methodology for calculation of collection efficiency and was to submit a report and it was decided that the Committee had come to an amicable settlement after going through the report submitted by the independent auditor. Learned counsel for the petitioners continuing with his argument has submitted that through letter dated 13.01.2014 issued by JUVNL, an Electrical Executive Engineer of the company was authorised to visit Bhiwandi, Maharashtra to study the input metering complaint as adopted by the distribution licencee as exchange/interface point for the purpose of energy accounting along with other aspect like organisational chart/working of Distribution Franchisee Cell etc. The fees of auditor was to have been increased owing to the delay in project for which the petitioner no. 1 was requested for extension of the contract of the independent auditor and revision of his fees. Reference has also been made to the minutes of meeting held on 03.04.2014 wherein a direction has been given to constitute a meeting to conduct testing of feeders by a third party and calibration of interface meters along with the metering unit by a third party to which both the Distribution Franchisees had showed their willingness. Learned counsel submits that till that point of time, everything was functioning smoothly and regular discussion between both the parties were going on in order to fulfill the terms and conditions of DFA and the first ominous sign of the threat, the DFA was facing came to the fore upon issuance of letter dated 03.07.2014 by the Energy Department, State of Jharkhand addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, JUVNL. The order dated 22.07.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3358 of 2014 wherein challenge was made to the letter dated 03.07.2014 by which it was directed that the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., if it is contemplating to take any decision in the matter of agreement in question shall not be influenced by the decision of the Government which thwarted to an extent the eminent danger of cancellation of the DFA. Learned counsel submits that in spite of the order dated 22.07.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3358 of 2014, a meeting was held on 05.08.2014 and the alleged irregularities committed in the tender process for selection of input base Distribution Franchisee for Ranchi and Jamshedpur Circle, it was decided to take the opinion of the senior legal advisor of the company and thereafter issue show-cause notice to the Franchisee as per the advice. In spite of taking such a stringent stand without there being any necessity to do so which can be termed as an oppressive, arbitrary and illegal action on the part of respondents, the petitioner no. 1 - company was once again communicated by letter dated 25.02.2015 issued by the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. for seeking the presence of officials of the petitioner no. 1 - company to discuss the issued related to handing over the distribution network to the Distribution Franchisee. Response was given by the petitioner no. 1 to adhere to the terms and conditions of the DFA, but in view of the long delay in implementing the projects, the base year of 2010-11 had to be reworked to 2013-14 to reflect the current day situation. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire acts as enumerated above would reveal that there has been full cooperation from the side of the petitioners to ensure that the project sees the light of the day. The respondents as would be revealed from the minutes of the innumerable meetings held between the representatives of both the sides had made discussions and had taken certain steps in trying to get the project implemented, but the issuance of the letter dated 03.07.2014 changed the entire scenario ultimately leading to cancellation of DFA vide impugned letter dated 06.05.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not have any premonition about impending letter of termination dated 06.05.2015 as the entire acts on the part of the respondents did suggest an element of camaraderie as the teething problems and nitty- grities of the work to be undertaken were duly being sorted out. The subsequent act of the respondents as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners was actuated with malice and therefore can be held to be a 'malice in law'. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment in the case of "State of A. P. and others Vs. Goverdhanlal Pitti" reported in (2003) 4 SCC 739 and in the case of "Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others" reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407.