IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. NO. 466 of 2009
M/s Shree Durga Steel Industries, Dhanbad ...... Appellant
Versus
1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board
2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad
Electric Supply Area JSEB, Dhanbad.
3. The DGM- cum-Electrical Superintending
Engineer,Dhanbad Electrical Circle, Saraidhella,Dhanbad.
4. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Dhanbad Electric Circle,
R.E.-cum-Supply Sub Division,Govindpur, Dhanbad.
5. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commerce &
Revenue),Dhanbad Electric Circle, Dhanbad.
....... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
......
For the Appellant : Mrs.Ritu Kumar
For the Respondents : M/s Rajesh Shankar & Abhay Prakash
.....
3/5.1.2010
This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3373 of 2009, whereby the
writ petition, claiming the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme was
denied to the petitioner-appellant as the writ petition was dismissed.
The appellant being aggrieved with the order of the learned Single
Judge has preferred this appeal.
Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, has
submitted that the learned Single Judge has relied upon erroneously
that the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme could not be
conferred on the appellant-Industry since the certificate case was
pending in regard to the amount which was to be paid by the appellant
to the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board. It was submitted
that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of One Time Settlement
Scheme , even though the matter had been adjudicated by way of
certificate proceeding.
However, we found it difficult to accept this contention as the
contention of the counsel for the appellant that the benefit of One time
Settlement Scheme should have been allowed to be availed of by the
2
appellant even though the certificate proceeding had concluded, has
no substance as it is not the case of the appellant that during
pendency of the certificate proceeding, the appellant had sought the
benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme.
The contention of the counsel perhaps could have been
accepted if the adjudication of the matter was still subjudice and had
not been concluded under the certificate proceeding. But, in the
instant matter, it is an admitted position that the amount payable by
the petitioner-appellant herein had already reached its conclusive
stage since the certificate proceeding concluded after proper
adjudication and the amount was held payable by the appellant. In
that view of the matter, the only course left open for the appellant
was to assail the order passed in the certificate proceeding as it is an
admitted position that One Time Settlement Scheme was meant only
for such consumers whose matter had not been adjudicated before
any Forum and the dispute was at the initial stage. This is not the
position in the instant matter as already indicated hereinbefore.
Hence, the view taken by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the writ
petition requires no interference and we concur with the view taken by
the learned Single that once the certificate officer had concluded the
certificate proceeding after which the appeal also was dismissed, the
question of benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme would not be
available to the appellant.
Under the circumstance, this appeal has no merit and
consequently it is dismissed.
( Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.)
( R.R. Prasad, J. )
G.Jha/