High Court Jharkhand High Court

Madhu Sudan Mittal vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 28 February, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Madhu Sudan Mittal vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 28 February, 2011
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                        CWJC No.      1793      OF 2001
                    Madhu Sudan Mittal Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors.
                                                   With
                                      W.P (PIL) No. 4611 OF 2009
                     Rohit Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
                                                   With
                                      W.P (PIL) No. 2918 OF 2010
               Palamau Chamber of Commerce Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
                                                   -------

         CORAM                              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                          HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.PATEL

         For the Appellant/Petitioner                   Mr.A.K.Singh, Amicus Curiae
         For the Respondent-State                       JC to A.G.
         For he Respondent-Board                        M/s.V.P.Singh, Sr.Advocate,
                                                        A.K.Pandey, P.K.Singh
         For Respondent Regulatory Commission           Mr. Sudershan Srivastava
         For Respondent -D.V.C.                         Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
                                                        ---------


  213 /28.2.2011

Heard the counsel for the parties.

Amicus Curiae submitted that he has argued before the Commission and
the Commission is receptive of the arguments advanced by him. Learned counsel for
the Commission has submitted that the Commission has considered the question of
appointing an Expert to investigate in respect of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.

There was no submission on behalf of the State as the learned counsel
appearing for the State submitted that he has no instruction.

Learned counsel appearing for the D.V.C raised the issue that they are not
being paid their dues by the Board.

Learned counsel for the Board disputed that there is any dues of D.V.C
pending with them.

The dispute between the D.V.C and the Board will be considered by the
Court at an appropriate stage.

Since it is submitted on behalf of the Regulatory Commission that the
Regulatory Commission is likely to do something on 26.3.2011, the matter may be
taken up on 28.3.2011.

(Bhagwati Prasad,C.J.)

(D.N.Patel,J.)
dey/SI