Jharkhand State Electricity Board vs M/S Arihant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. Having Its ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2277 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand State Electricity Board vs M/S Arihant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. Having Its ... on 23 March, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                       2026:JHHC:8066




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                           W.P. (C.) No. 4797 of 2011
                                              ----

Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Law Officer, Mithilesh Kumar, S/o Sri R.B. Choudhary, resident of Sector - II, Dhurwa, PO - Dhurwa, PS - Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

M/s Arihant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 9 India Exchange Place, Kolkata (West Bengal) and its works at village - Hupad, Demotand, Hazaribagh, 825301 (Jharkhand) through its Director Sri Anil Kumar Jain, S/o Sri Gyan Chand Jain, R/o Club Road, Hazaribagh, PO and PS - Hazaribagh, District - Hazaribagh .... Respondent

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate :- Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent :- Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Advocate

----

18/23.03.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

learned counsel appearing for the sole Respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment

dated 09.02.2011 passed by Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand in

Case No. EOJ/07/2010. The prayer is also made for setting aside

the judgment dated 19.08.2010 passed in Case No.14 of 2007 by

Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum, JSEB, Ranchi, whereby

the petition filed by the consumer/respondent have been allowed

and M.M.G. bill dated 09.08.2006 for a dues of Rs.1,17,60,000/-

was set aside and the petitioner JSEB has been directed not to raise

--1-- W.P. (C.) No. 4797 of 2011 2026:JHHC:8066

any M.G. bill for the disconnection period i.e. 08.12.2005 to

16.07.2006 and from 04.10.2006 till the power supply is restored

and further directed to issue revised energy bill on the respondent

consumer.

3. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that electricity disconnection of the respondent-

consumer was made on 08.12.2005 and 04.10.2006 that was in

conformity with Section 56 of Electricity Act and Clause 11.11.1 of

Electricity Supply (Code) Regulation, 2005. He further submits that

the bill dated 09.08.2006 relates to minimum monthly charges is

fully justified and payable by the respondent-consumer and the

respondent-consumer is liable to pay the said charges for the period

of disconnection of electricity. According to him, the sole respondent

is liable to make payment of the minimum guarantee charges till the

determination of agreement with the licensee irrespective of the

disconnection of electricity during the said period. He then submits

that the respondent-consumer has not made any payment of bill

dated 09.08.2006 and in view of that the bill was raised in light of

Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003. He next submits that Vidyut

Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum, JSEB, Ranchi as well as

Electricity Ombudsman have wrongly held that statutory period of

notice of 15 days in light of Section 56 has not been complied with

and further wrong finding has been given by Vidyut Upbhokta

Shikayat Niwaran Forum, JSEB, Ranchi as well as Electricity

--2-- W.P. (C.) No. 4797 of 2011 2026:JHHC:8066

Ombudsman that minimum monthly charges cannot be charged. On

these grounds, he submits that the impugned orders may kindly be

set aside.

4. Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the

sole respondent-consumer submits that in light of Section 56 of

Electricity Act both the Forums have given a clear-cut finding. He

further submits that it has been discussed in paragraph Nos.11 and

12 of the judgment of Forums that how notice has been served and

it is not effected. He then submits that since the notice itself was

not in terms of Section 56 of Indian Electricity Act, as such learned

Forums have rightly held that for the period from 08.12.2005 to

16.07.2006 no bill can be charged from the consumer. He relied in

the case of M/s. Electric (Patlipura) Power Equipment

Private Ltd. versus The Bihar State Electricity Board and

Others reported in (1991) SCC OnLine Pat 116 wherein at

paragraph Nos.5 and 6 it has been held as under :-

5. The next question that arises for consideration is that if the Board unlawfully stops supply of energy to the consumer then as to whether it can, still lawfully claim annual minimum guarantee charges. The answer is emphatic No. None can be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong or fraud. To hold otherwise will mean giving premium to the wrong committed by the Board.

6. There is still Anr. stronger reason for holding the above view. Clause 13 of the L.T. Agreement meant for low tension consumers reads as under:

"In case where the consumer is prevented from taking or using energy either in whole or part owing to causes beyond his control, e.g. strikes,

--3-- W.P. (C.) No. 4797 of 2011 2026:JHHC:8066

lockouts, flood, stoppage of supply by the Board for long duration on account of breakdown of machinery or plants and otherwise, etc., the actual minimum charges will be reduced proportionately to the number of days the power could not be used, provided the consumer intimates such interruption to the Asstt. Elecl. Engineer/Elecl.

Executive Engineer of the Supply Subdivision/Supply Division concerned immediately and period of such interruption is verified by him. The remission will be sanctioned only by the Electrical Superintending Engineer incharge of the Supply Circle. This connection will not, however, apply to industrialists who are prevented from taking supply for reasons incidental to business or on account of stoppage of supply by the Board for reasons which may be attributable in whole or in part to the consumer as well. Decision of the Elecl. Superintending Engineer of Supply Circle concerned on points arising under this clause shall be final and binding.

5. He further relied in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Hotel Satkar Pvt. Ltd. versus Bihar State

Electricity Board and Others reported in (1979) SCC OnLine

Pat 127 wherein at paragraph No.12 it has been held as under :

12. The question is : If there is a bona fide dispute with regard to either of the two matters aforesaid, can it be said that the petitioner is a person who has neglected to pay any charge for the energy? The answer, in our view, is obviously in favour of the petitioner that there has been no such neglect. ''Neglect'' or ''default'' connotes something like the breach of a duty or legal obligation existing at the time (vide Stroud''s Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 3, Third Edition, page 1880); and ''negligence, not being an affirmative word, connotes "the absence of such care, skill and diligence, as it was the duty of the person to bring to the performance'' of the work which he is said not to have performed "or" negligence is the omitting to do something that a reasonable man would do, or the doing something

--4-- W.P. (C.) No. 4797 of 2011 2026:JHHC:8066

which a reasonable man would not do (Ibid page-1881). From the conduct of the parties-more from the conduct of the respondents themselves--it is abundantly clear and an inference is irresistible that there is a bona fide belief in the mind of the petitioner and, justifiably, so that the billings for the period from April, 1978 to March, 1979 have not been made in accordance with law, whether on account of miscalculation or on account of illegal or unfactual presumption of an agreement for 315 kva maximum demand supply or for some other reason best known to the respondents. The respondent Board being a statutory body, it is well settled that it must take care, like all public bodies invested with statutory power, not to exceed or abuse its powers and it must keep within the limits of authority committed to it. It has been repeatedly stated--and it is trite law by now-- that it must act in good faith and reasonable--refer to Lord Macnaughten in Mayor, & Co. of West minister V. London and North Western Railway Company (1905) A.C. 426 at p. 430/-. Decisions of various Courts of law are all one sided in favour of the petitioner. The decisions veiled upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are those in the cases in (1) Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. The Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company Ltd., . (2) Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Madhusudandass and Brothers, , (3) Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. The U.P. State Electricity Board, and (4) Orissa Fibre Vs. The Orissa State Electricity Board and Another, ; the two decisions of the Bombay High Court and that of the Orissa High Court are the Bench decisions were as the Allahabad decision is that of a single Judge. There is absolutely no doubt expressed in any of these decisions that; where there is a reasonable belief or justifiable reason or cause leading to a bona fide dispute between the licensee and the consumer, there is any scope for application of the first part of Section 27 of the Act- These decisions have rightly been pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that there is

bonafide dispute with regard to either of the two matters and if it is

not done in accordance with law the energy cannot be charged

--5-- W.P. (C.) No. 4797 of 2011 2026:JHHC:8066

upon the consumer. He further submits that the bill they have raised

on the basis of tariff which has already been overpowered by the

tariff order of 2003-04 issued by Jharkhand State Electricity

Regulatory Commission. On these background, he submits that the

learned Forums have rightly passed the order and there is no

illegality.

7. Annexure-11 which was before the Vidyut Upbhokta

Shikayat Niwaran Forum, JSEB, Ranchi and the Forum looking into

that has come to the conclusion that even if the first tender of the

notice was made to the chowkidar of consumer by the postal peon

on 23.11.2005 but the 15th day completes on 08.12.2005 and

10.12.2005 respectively, hence, excluding the terminal dates, the

disconnection should have been effected either on 09.12.2005 or on

11.12.2005, but, in fact the power supply was disconnected on

08.12.2005 itself and in view of that Forum has said the

disconnection to be illegal. Learned Electric Ombudsman has also

found same and has discussed the same in detail in paragraph

Nos.11 and 12.

8. Section 56 of Indian Electricity Act clearly stipulates that for

disconnection 15 days prior notice is the statutory requirement. In

light of above discussion in the two forums, it is clear that the

statutory period was not complied and in view of the disconnection

was held to be illegal and if it was illegal learned Forums have

rightly held that from the period 08.12.2005 to 16.07.2006

--6-- W.P. (C.) No. 4797 of 2011 2026:JHHC:8066

electricity energy charges cannot be charged upon the petitioner on

the basis of monthly minimum guarantee charge.

9. In view of the above and in two judgments relied by learned

counsel appearing for the sole respondent and in light of statutory

provision made under Section 56 of Indian Electricity Act, the Court

finds that there is no illegality in the orders of learned Vidyut

Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum, JSEB, Ranchi as well as

Electricity Ombudsman, as such this writ petition is dismissed.

                                     (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated 23.03.2026
Sangam/




                             --7--                      W.P. (C.) No. 4797 of 2011