Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Sujata Picture Palace vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited on 23 September, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:29462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.551 of 2020
M/S. SUJATA PICTURE PALACE, a partnership concern
having its premises at Main Road, Ranchi through one of
its Partner Mr. Dushyant Jaiswal, aged about 43 years,
son of Late D. Jaiswal, resident of Lake Avenue, Kanke
Road, P.O. Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, Town and District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its
Managing Director, having office at Engineers
Bhawan, HEC Bhawan, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jaganathpur, District Ranchi.
2. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer,
Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Ranchi
Electricity Supply Area, Kusai Colony, P.O.-
Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi.
3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jharkhand
Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Board Head Quarter,
near HEC Circle, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.- Jaganathpur,
District Ranchi. ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. M. S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate
Mrs. L. G. Mittal, Advocate
Mr. Yashdeep Kanhai, Advocate
Mr. A. V. Singh, Advocate
Ms. Divya Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. S. K. Jha, Advocate
For the Resp.-JBVNL : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. S.C
---------
rd
08/Dated: 23 September, 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs :-
"(a) for the issuance of an appropriate writ or a
writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondent No.2 to decide and dispose off the
various representations made to it including the
representation dated 19.07.2019 within a fixed time
frame, since these representations were made
pursuant to the Order dated 09.08.2010 passed in
L.P.A.No. 391 of 2009 by which the Order of the Ld.
2025:JHHC:29462
Single Judge dated 01.07.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.
1571/2000 (R) was set aside and also Impugned
Order dated 07.06.2000 passed by the Respondent
No.2 was quashed. It is further prayed that in the
event no Order is passed within the time frame fixed
by this Hon'ble Court, then the Respondents may be
directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.
4,74,324.94 to the Petitioner forthwith along with
interest thereupon.
(b) for the issuance of an appropriate writ for
direction upon the Respondents to delete the entire
Delayed Payment Surcharge on the penal amount,
since the Order on the basis of which the penal bill
was raised itself has been set aside by the Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Court and to refund the same
forthwith to the Petitioner.
(c) for the issuance of an appropriate writ for
direction upon the Respondents to take necessary
action for deleting the arrears shown against the
Petitioner as outstanding dues which is DPS upon
DPS and therefore, is liable to be set aside."
3. The field has already been occupied vide order dated
09.08.2010, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
L.P.A. No.391 of 2009. Para - 19 of order is relevant which is
quoted herein-below :-
"19. This Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly
allowed with cost. The judgment and order dated
1st July, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge
in C.W.J.C No.1571 of 2000(R) is hereby set aside
and the impugned order dated 7 th June, 2000
passed by the General manager -cum- Chief
Engineer, Electricity Supply Area, Ranchi
(Annexure 7 to the memo of appeal) is quashed.
The matter will be decided afresh by the General
manager -cum- Chief Engineer by a reasoned
order within six weeks from the date on which a
certified copy of this order is presented before
him after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
appellant."
4. Thus, there is no requirement of passing any afresh
order.
5. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.2 i.e. the
2025:JHHC:29462
General Manager cum Chief Engineer, is directed to take a
final decision in the matter within six weeks from the date of
receipt/ production of copy of this order, as per the mandate
of the earlier order, after giving due hearing to the petitioner
and the order must be reasoned one.
6. With above discussion and direction, the present writ
petition is, hereby, disposed of.
7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
23rd September, 2025
Ravi-Chandan/-
