ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Pursuant to order dated 18.3.2005, the Chairman of the Board and the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area Electricity Board, Dhanbad have appeared in person and filed show-causes and counter-affidavit.
2. Instant writ petition was filed by the petitioners for quashing the circular as contained in letter dated 11.7.2000 issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board fixing the rate of fuel surcharge for the years 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1998-99 in compliance of the judgment dated 26.6.2000 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pulak Enterprises & Ors. (CWJC No. 5542 of 1999 and other analogous cases) and also for quashing the circular dated 16.8.2000 by which the Board has fixed the provisional rate of fuel surcharge for the period 1999-2000. In the said writ’ petition, petitioners also challenged the bills of fuel surcharge on various grounds.
3. The writ petition was heard on 23.10.2000 and this Court passed the following order :
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Place these cases for admission alongwith CWJC No. 2660/2000(R).
To be consistent with the interim orders passed in other cases, I direct the petitioners to deposit 50% of the impugned bills within two months and the rest of the 50% of the bills in three equal monthly instalments, subject to the result of these cases.
So far as stay of circular is concerned, if the same has been stayed by this Court, no further order required to be passed to that effect.
The pendency of these cases will also not stand in the way of the Board to pass appropriate order for exclusion of D.P.S. charges from the bills in question.”
4. On 6.6.2001, the instant writ petition was dismissed in terms of the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2001 passed in CWJC No. 2758/2000. However, the judgment passed in CWJC No. 2758/2000 was eventually set-aside and the matter was remanded back to this Court in LPA. In the meantime, respondent-Board issued notice for disconnection which resulted in filing of the Interlocutory Application being LA. No. 451 of 2005. One of the petitioners has also filed separate Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 452 of 2005 against the notice issued by the Board for disconnection. These two Interlocutory Applications were taken up on 24.2.2005 but on the request of Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board, the case was passed over for the day. On 28.2.2005 again on the request of Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board, the case was adjourned for two weeks for filing reply to the LA. petition. Again the matter was taken up on 18.3.2005 but no reply was filed. On that date, this Court was compelled to pass the order for personal appearance of the Chairman of the Board and the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer.
5. In the show-cause filed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area Electricity Board, Dhanbad besides tendering apology it is stated that he came to know about the filing of the Interlocutory Application only on 15.3.2005. When Mr. Delip Jerath submits the copy of the Interlocutory Application received by the Officers on 17.2.2005 and 28.2.2005 then it was the duty of the Officers to file reply to the Interlocutory Application or make prayer to the Court by filing application for extension of time for filing reply. However, it was only after the order for personal appearance of the Chairman, a counter-affidavit has been filed. Surprisingly, in the counter-affidavit it is stated that due to misconception the delayed surcharge has been levied. It is further stated that notice for disconnection has been issued due to misconception. This is how the Officers of the Board in the rank of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer are behaving and harassing the consumers.
6. As noticed above, inspite of deposit of the entire amount by the petitioners, notice for disconnection was issued. This cause serious harassment and spending cost in filing Interlocutory Applications.
7. Considering the statement made in the show cause and the counter-affidavit, admittedly petitioners have been harassed and they were compelled to move this Court. Show cause and the counter-affidavit is therefore accepted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- The Chairman after payment of cost shall fix responsibility and recover the cost amount from the salary of those Officers for whose negligence the notice of disconnection was issued.
This order disposes of both the I.As.
