ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. The writ petition was preferred by petitioner Bihar State Electricity Board (B.S.E.B. for short) against the Order No. 26 dated 7th May, 2001 and office Order No. 33 dated 11th May, 2001. Both issued by the Secretary. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB for short).
2. By the impugned orders, the Secretary, J.SE.B. constituted a four members Committee to assist the adjudicator, Chairman. J.S.E.B., in the matter of adjudication in terms with order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 256/2000(R) and Civil Review No. 87/2000(RO. The Committee was also asked to visit the site of respondent No. 5. M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. and to submit report to the adjudicator. Chairman, J.S.E.B. with their expert opinion.
3. It appears that respondent No.5 M/S. Usha Beltron Ltd. preferred a writ petition. CWJC No. 1397/2000(R) and prayed for issuance of appropriate writ revoking the authority of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area. Electricity Board. Jamshedpur to adjudicate the dispute as was raised by the petitioner in the said case. The writ petition was heard and disposed of on 14th July, 2000 by learned single Judge directing the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. Jamshedpur to comply with the earlier direction of this Court passed in CWJG No. 223/2000(R) and to decide the dispute. Against the order of learned single Judge respondent No. 5 M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. moved in L.P.A. No. 256/2000(R) wherein a Division Bench vide order dated 11th April, 2001 disposed of the appeal with the following observations and directions:–
“The judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27.1.2000 passed in CWJC: No. 223 of 2000(R) is modified only to the limited extent that the adjudication, as ordered in para ’13’ of that judgment, shall now be done by the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi, in place of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. Singhbhum Area, Jamshedpur. Except to the aforesaid limited extent there is no variation/ change in the judgment under appeal. The Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, shall complete the adjudication proceedings and pass the reasoned order within six weeks from today. The parties shall fully co-operate with him in the proceedings. The parties, includes the appellants, shall have a right of hearing before the Chairman. The Chairman shall take over the proceedings at the stage at which these are presently before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area, Jamshedpur who is directed to hand over the entire records of the proceedings to the Chairman. Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The Chairman, Jharkhand, State Electricity Board, shall devise his own procedure for the conduct of the proceedings, but it goes without saying that the procedure so devised shall be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
If the Chairman. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, feels any difficulty, in course of the proceedings, with respect to any technical aspects of the matter. It shall be open to him to take the assistance of a technical person, whom he may openly associate with himself. Such technical person, however, shall be of the rank of the general Manager in the Electricity Board.”
4. Another Civil Review No. 87/2000(R) was preferred by respondent No. 5. M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. which was withdrawn on 11th April, 2001 in view of order passed in L.P.A. No. 256/2000(R).
5. The Chairman, J.S.E.B., thereafter to adjudicate the matter noticed the concerned parties. In the meantime, the Secretary, J.S.E.B., Ranchi having issued impugned office Order No. 26 dated 7th May. 2001. as modified vide office Order No. 33 dated 11th may, 2001, constituting a Committee, the B.S.E.B. opposed the same in the present case.
6. It is not in dispute that the Chairman, J.S.E.B. to adjudicate the matter was given liberty by Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 256/2000(R) to take assistance of a technical person in case of difficulty. However, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the Chairman. J.S.E.B., sought for any assistance from any Committee. The Secretary, J.S.E.B., Ranchi being an officer of the J.S.E.B. and it being a party to the proceeding had admittedly no jurisdiction to constitute a committee. The office Order No. 26 dated 7th May, 2001 as amended vide office Order No. 33 dated 11th May, 2001, was without jurisdiction, the Secretary, J.S.E.B. having not delegated with jurisdiction, the Secretary, J.S.E.B. having not delegated with such power either by the Court and/or Chairman, J.S.E.B.
7. Counsel for the J.S.E.B. and B.S.E.B. submitted that the Chairman, J.S.E.B. had concluded the hearing without any report of Committee constituted vide order dated 7th May. 2001/11th May. 2001, and, thus, the writ petition has become infructuous.
8. However, according to Mr. Joy Saha, the counsel for M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. the writ petition has not yet become infructuous, no final decision having taken by the Chairman, J.S.E.B It is stated that the Chairman, J.S.E.B. is still empowered to take technical assistance and may request the Court of law to allow him to have assistance from outside experts.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as admittedly the Secretary, J.S.E.B., Ranchi had no jurisdiction to constitute a Committee to assist the Chairman. J.S.E.B. impugned Order No. 26 dated 7th May. 2001, as modified by office Order No. 33 dated 11th May, 2001, are set aside.
10. However, this order will not stand in the way of the parties, including the Chairman, J.S.E.B., Ranchi to proceed in terms with the order passed in L.P.A. No. 256/ 2000(R).
11. The Writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.