Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs M/S Ramkrishan Forgings Limited on 20 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:34692
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No.725 of 2025
-----
1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, having its office at Engineers'
Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing
Director, having its office at Engineers' Bhawan, HEC Dhurwa,
Ranchi.
3. The General Managing-cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum
Electric Supply Area, Bistupur, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, Bistupur, Jamshedpur.
4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Jamshedpur, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, office at
JIADA Building, Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan.
.......... Petitioners.
-Versus-
M/s Ramkrishan Forgings Limited, a company incorporated
under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered
office at 23, Circus, 9th Floor, P.O. and P.S.- Circus Avenue,
District-Kolkata-700017, West Bengal and having its works at
Adityapur Industrial Area, Plot Nos.15-16, N.S.-26, Gamharia,
P.O. & P.S.- Gamharia, District-Saraikela-Kharsawan,
Jharkhand-832108, through its authorized signatory Rahul
Kumar Bagaria, Son of Bishnu Binod Bagaria, aged about 43
years, Resident of Aditya Syndicate, 326C, Block 3, Adityapur-
II, P.O.- R.I.T., P.S.- Saraikela, District- Saraikela-Kharsawan,
Jharkhand-831014.
.......... Opp. Parties.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. : Mr. D.K. Pathak, Advocate
-----
Order No.06 Date: 20.11.2025
1. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for recall
of the order dated 6th March, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.37 of
2025, which reads as under:
"The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the judgment dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure-4 to the writ
petition) passed by the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwran
2025:JHHC:34692
Forum, Chaibasa at Jamshedpur in Case No. 06/2022
(Consumer No. HJAP-185).
After some argument, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for withdrawal of the present writ petition
with liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the
Electricity Ombudsman against the aforesaid judgment
passed by the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwran Forum,
Chaibasa at Jamshedpur.
Considering the said prayer, the present writ petition
is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though in
course of arguing the aforesaid writ petition he prayed for
withdrawal of the same with liberty to the petitioners therein
(Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors.) to prefer an
appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman against the judgment
passed by the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwran Forum (in
short "VUSNF"), Chaibasa at Jamshedpur, yet Section 42(6) of
the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short "the Act, 2003") only permits
the consumer to prefer a representation/appeal in case of non-
redressal of his grievance before the VUSNF constituted under
sub-Section 5 of the Section 42 of the said Act. It does not
permit the distribution licensee to file any such
representation/appeal against the judgment passed by the
VUSNF.
3. It is further submitted that the said aspect has been clarified
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7th December,
2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.7465 of 2021 (@ SLP (Civil)
No.20736/2019) (Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation
2025:JHHC:34692
Limited & Ors. Vs. Kisan Cold Storage and Ice Factory
& Ors.)
4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the said
position of law.
5. For the purpose of clarity, the relevant part of aforesaid order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttar
Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Kisan
Cold Storage and Ice Factory & Ors. (supra) is quoted
hereunder:
"Section 43 (5), (6) and (7) provide for a mechanism by
which a forum for redressal of grievances of consumers is
established and an Ombudsman will decide the
representations of the consumers who are aggrieved by a
decision of the forum. Any guidelines to be framed by the
State Commission should be in strict conformity with the
said provisions of the Act. Section 43(6) makes it clear that
a representation to the Ombudsman against a decision of
the forum can be preferred only by a consumer. Regulation
8.1(i) providing a right of representation to a Distribution
Licensee is completely contrary to Section 43(6) of the Act
and, is, therefore, ultra vires. It is trite law that subordinate
legislation 7 cannot override a statutory provision.
Furthermore, when there is no ambiguity in a statutory
provision literal construction has to be adopted. There is
absolutely no confusion that Section 43 (6) enables only
consumers and not a Distribution Licensee to prefer
representations to an Ombudsman against a decision of the
forum."
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. Kisan Cold Storage and
2025:JHHC:34692
Ice Factory & Ors. (supra) as well as keeping in view that
the petitioner herein is a distribution licensee and has no
recourse available under law against the order passed by the
VUSNF, Chaibasa at Jamshedpur i.e., preferring a
representation/appeal under Section 42(6) of the Act, 2003
before the Electricity Ombudsman, the order dated 6th March,
2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.37 of 2025 is hereby recalled.
7. Accordingly, the present civil miscellaneous petition stands
disposed of.
8. Office is directed to put up W.P.(C) No.37 of 2025 before
appropriate Bench as per the roster.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
20th November, 2025
Rohit/
Uploaded on
21.11.2025
