IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4033 of 2008
Archana Devi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors. ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
For the J.S.E.B. : Mr. J. Dubey, Advocate
-----
02/27.11.2008
. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the J.S.E.B.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Pradeep
Prasad Choudhary-father-in-law of this petitioner, had electric connection in his
house bearing No.HI-265, situated at Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi, but electric
connection was disconnected as the father-in-law of this petitioner, was allegedly
found consuming electric energy stealthily for which a criminal case was lodged
wherein loss was assessed as Rs.1,56,400/- tentatively. However, when the father-
in-law of this petitioner, preferred anticipatory bail application before this Court, it
was told to this Court that the loss assessed by the informant, which has been
mentioned in the first information report, is without any basis and if the amount of
loss is calculated in terms of the provision, the tentative amount would come to
Rs.1,24,000/- though that assessment was confined only with respect to
anticipatory bail application in which father-in-law of this petitioner was granted
anticipatory bail, on deposit of the half of the amount of Rs.1,24,000/- i.e. 62,000/-
which the father-in-law of the petitioner has already deposited before the Electricity
Board. Subsequently, when this petitioner being the daughter-in-law, applied new
electric connection, it was refused on the ground that there has been dues of
Rs.1,56,400/- and as such no new electric connection would be provided in the
same premises until and unless Rs.1,56,400/- is paid to the Electricity Board. But
the petitioner or her father-in-law would be ready to deposit rest of the amount i.e.
Rs.94,400/- in three installments and in that event, the Electricity Board be directed
to restore the old connection.
However, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Electricity
Board submits that the amount of loss given in the first information report as
1,56,400/- was tentative rather on final calculation, the amount of loss has been
assessed as Rs.2,03,377/- and hence, until and unless the said amount is deposited,
the petitioner or her father-in-law would not be entitled to have electric connection
restored.
Upon it, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that such
demand of Rs.2,03,377/- had never been made in the impugned order, which has
been annexed as Annexure-3 to this writ petition rather under Annexure-3 only a
sum of Rs.1,56,400/- has been shown, as due to the Electricity Board and now the
respondent-Board cannot go beyond that in view of the decision reported in a case
of Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New
Delhi and others (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851).
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it does appear that the
Electricity Board, under Annexure-3, has categorically stated that no new connection
would be given to the same premises over which an amount of Rs.1,56,400/- is due
and in that event if the petitioner or her father-in-law deposits such amount, then
the petitioner would be entitled to have new connection or alternatively father-in-
law of the petitioner would be entitled to have electric connection restored. It is
stated that in terms of the order passed in connection with anticipatory bail
application of Pradeep Prasad Choudhary-father-in-law of this petitioner, is said to
have deposited a sum of Rs.62,000/- with the Electricity Board and, therefore, only
Rs.94,400/- seems to be due to the Electricity Board.
In that view of the matter, if the petitioner or her-father-in-law
deposits Rs.31,460/- before the Jharkhand Electricity Board within a fortnight,
the Electricity Board would restore the old connection within three days. So far
payment of the rest of the amount of Rs.62940/- is concerned, the same should
be paid in two installments in next six months, but if the petitioner or her father-
in-law fails to deposit the said amount, the Electricity Board would be entitled to
disconnect the electric connection.
This is, however, made clear that this order never precludes the
Electricity Board to realize the amounts, in accordance with law, which have been
finally assessed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
Ravi/