Shivajee Pandeya vs Jharkhand State Electricity ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2216 Jhar

                                      1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                            W.P.(C) No. 5985 of 2015
   Shivajee Pandeya s/o Late Surya Deo Pandeya r/o Sri Seva Mandir Seva
   Mandir Lane, Azad Basti (jemco), P.O. & P.S. Telco Town Jamshedpur, -4,
   District-East Singhbhum.
                                                           ... ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Chairman officiating at
   Engineering Bhawan, HEC Township, Durwa, P.O. & P.S. Jaggnathpur
   Dist.-Ranchi.
2. G.M. Cum Chief Engineer Jharkhand State Electricity Board Singhbhum
   Electric Supply Area Singhbhum Co-operative Bank Building 1st Floor,
   Bistipur, Jamshedpur-1, P.O. & P.S. Tatanagar, Dist-East Singhbhum.
3. Executive Engineer JSEB Electric Supply Division, Karandih, P.O. & P.S.
   Tatanagar, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum.
                                                            ... ... Respondents
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate For the Resp.-JESB : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate

-----------

st 11/Dated: 21 June, 2023

The writ petition pertains to a direction to be issued upon the respondent-JSEB, the licensee for refund of an amount of Rs.73,238/-.

It has been contended that for the theft of electricity, an FIR was instituted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code in which the writ petitioner has been acquitted.

It has further been contended that in the light of the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, wherein an order was passed on 20.09.2014 giving liberty to the writ petitioner to raise the issue before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. After being aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was also filed before the Ombudsman but the order passed by the forum has been affirmed.

The writ petition has been filed after acquittal in the criminal case for the refund of the aforesaid amount by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It appears from the material available on record that in the light of the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum affirmed by the

Ombudsman, there cannot be any direction by the writ court, rather in view of the liberty given by the forum, the same was to be agitated by the writ petitioner before the competent court of law. But, it appears from the judgment passed by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction that no such plea was taken, however, a finding has been given by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction while acquitting the writ petition that the Consumer No. AZB-164 does not belong to the writ petition.

The claim of the writ petitioner is that the aforesaid connection was granted not by way of Consumer No. AZB-164 rather Consumer No. AZB-

976.

Be that as it may, whatever issue is available, the writ court cannot go into the disputed question of fact.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

However, it is left open upon the writ petitioner to search out his remedy for redressal of his grievance.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/-