{"id":16642,"date":"2009-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-03T14:51:45","modified_gmt":"2017-09-03T09:21:45","slug":"anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009<\/div>\n
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.\n                                W.P. (C) No. 6557 of 2005\n                                                ...\n                Anup Kumar Choudhary                            ...       ...      Petitioner\n                                        -V e r s u s-\n                1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi\n                2. The Chief Engineer (Electrical), J.S.E.B., Ranchi.\n                3. The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, J.S.E.B., Kokar\n                Rural Area, Ranchi.\n                4. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division,\n                J.S.E.B., TatiSilway\/Namkum Rural Area, Ranchi ...               Respondents\n                                                ...\nCORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.\n                                                ...\n For the Petitioner     : - M\/s. L.K. Bajla & R.K. Bhargava, Advocates.\n For the Respondents : - Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate\n                        & Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates.\n                                                ...\n                C.A.V. On: - 11\/08\/2009                      Delivered On: - 03\/09\/2009\n                                                ...\n6\/ 03.09.2009<\/pre>\n
                    Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for issuance of an
\n               appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated-
\n               19.08.1995 (Annexure-8), by which the Respondents have rejected the
\n               petitioner’s application for providing electric connection to his premises situated
\n               within Plot No. 1253 to 1262 at Mihilong, Namkom in the district of Ranchi. The
\n               grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his application submitted together
\n               with requisite fee, the Respondents have failed to provide electric connection to
\n               his premises.\n<\/p>\n
               2.              Earlier, with the same prayer, the petitioner had preferred a writ
\n               application vide W.P. (C) No. 3055 of 2005. While disposing of the said writ
\n               application, this Court by its order dated 29.06.2005, instead of deciding the case
\n               on merits, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer,
\n               Electric Supply Division, Kokar Urban Area, Ranchi and with a corresponding
\n               direction to the Respondents to decide the petitioner’s claim within two months
\n               by taking into consideration, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the
\n               case of Isha Marbles-versus-Bihar State Electricity Board & others reported in
\n               (1995) 2 SCC 682, wherein the Supreme Court held that the electric connection
\n               cannot be refused to the subsequent owner on the ground of outstanding dues
\n               against the erstwhile owner and to communicate to the petitioner, if any adverse
\n               decision is taken by the concerned authorities. The representation having been
\n               rejected by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
               3.              The petitioner’s case is that he had purchased the land alongwith
\n               residential house situated over the aforementioned plots, comprising a total area
\n               of 6.48 acres, from one M\/s. Sahu Gupta Industries, under a registered sale deed
\n               dated 11.09.2000. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the Government
\n               Revenue Records vide an order dated 23.03.2001, passed in Mutation Case No.
\n               787-R\/2000-2001. After mutation, the petitioner had deposited rent and had
\n               obtained rent receipt.\n<\/p>\n
                                [2 ]
\n                                                              [W.P. (C) No. 6557 of 2005]<\/p>\n
                        The    petitioner    thereafter   submitted   his    application
\nalongwith requisite fee, before the Respondent-Electricity Board, praying for
\ngiving electric connection to his premises. His prayer was however, refused by the
\nRespondents-authorities on the ground that some dues towards electricity charges
\nagainst the erstwhile owner of the land, have remained unpaid.\n<\/p>\n
4.              Pursuant to the directions contained in the order passed in the
\nearlier writ application, the petitioner submitted his detailed representation,
\nenclosing therewith a copy of the sale deed, copies of the rent receipts and other
\nparticulars as well as the requisite fees.\n<\/p>\n
5.              However, despite the directions contained in the earlier order
\npassed in the writ application, the Respondents have failed to follow the ratio
\ndecided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Isha Marbles
\n(Supra), and have rejected the petitioner’s application to provide the new electric
\nconnection to his premises on the same ground that the electricity dues, payable
\nby the erstwhile owner of the land, has not been cleared.\n<\/p>\n
6.              Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the refusal of the
\nRespondents to provide a new electric connection to the petitioner, on the ground
\nof non-payment of electricity dues by the erstwhile owner, is totally illegal and
\ncontrary to the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Isha Marbles
\n(Supra).\n<\/p>\n
                        Learned counsel explains further, that the reliance placed
\nby the Respondents in the case of M\/s. Swarn Rekha Enterprises is not applicable
\nto the facts of the present case, as because in the M\/s. Swarn Rekha Enterprises’
\ncase, the claim for a new electric connection was made by one of the partners of
\nthe original Firm against which the electric dues had remained uncleared and the
\nliability was therefore cast upon the partner to pay the dues of the Firm. Referring
\nto the case of Isha Marbles (Supra), learned counsel would argue that on
\nconsidering the facts of the case that there was no charge over the property, the
\npurchaser of the property could not be called upon to clear the dues of electric
\nconsumption charge owed by the previous consumer\/owner.\n<\/p>\n
                        Learned counsel submits further that the same ratio was
\nfollowed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Kanaklata Sharma-versus-
\nJharkhand State Electricity Board & Others reported in 2005 (4) J.L.J.R. 267 and
\nearlier in the case of Smt. Rekha Gupta-versus-Bihar State Electricity Board &
\nothers reported in 1999 (3) P.L.J.R. 22 and also in a recent judgment of this Court
\nin the case of Smt. Maya Devi-versus-State of Jharkhand & Others, passed in
\nW.P. (C) No. 4443 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
7.              Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondents-Electricity Board is
\nas follows: –<\/p>\n
\n [3 ]\n                              [W.P. (C) No. 6557 of 2005]\n\n\n\n\n (i)     The land in question belonged originally to\n M\/s.    Sahu    Gupta    Industries,   which was       a\n<\/pre>\n
 partnership Firm. The Firm sold away the property
\n to the present petitioner without clearing the
\n charges towards electric consumption by more than
\n Rs. 18 Lakhs till the year 1998-99. A Certificate
\n Case was initiated against the Firm and its partners
\n for realization of the amount vide Certificate Case
\n No. 1 (M) 95-96\/34\/98-99, which is still pending.\n<\/p>\n
 (ii)    At the time of purchase of the property, the
\n petitioner had acknowledged the debt which the
\n Firm had owed to the Bank and had sold away the
\n Machines and the Scrap materials of the Firm to
\n clear off the loan dues of the Bank, which was
\n pending against the erstwhile owner.\n<\/p>\n
 (iii)   The petitioner had purchased the property in
\n a private negotiation after being fully acquainted
\n with the liability of the Firm, including the financial
\n liability towards the Respondents-J.S.E.B. for the
\n electricity dues.\n<\/p>\n
 (iv)    In     the   Certificate   Proceedings,      the
\n Certificate Court had ordered the erstwhile owner,
\n not to dispose of the property without prior
\n permission and inspite of such order, the petitioner
\n had proceeded to purchase the premises from the
\n erstwhile owner through the sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
 (v)     It was the duty of the purchaser to satisfy
\n himself that there was no electricity dues before
\n purchasing the premises.\n<\/p>\n
 (vi)    The ratio decided in the Isha Marble’s case
\n (Supra) does not apply to the facts of the present
\n case, because in Isha Marble’s case (Supra), the
\n property was purchased in auction by the auction
\n purchaser and under such circumstances, it was held
\n that the auction purchaser could not be saddled with
\n any responsibility of liquidating the debt of the
\n erstwhile owner.\n<\/p>\n
 (vii)   On the other hand, this Court in the case of
\n Prashant       Kumar     Gupta-versus-Bihar       State
\n Electricity Board & Others reported in 2001 (2)
\n                             [4 ]
\n                                                          [W.P. (C) No. 6557 of 2005]<\/p>\n
                             J.C.R. 103 (Jhr.), and the Supreme Court in the case
\n                             of      M\/s.   Hyderabad     Vanaspati-versus-       AP
\n                             Electricity Board reported in (1998) 2 SCR 620, had
\n                             declared that the ratio in the case of Isha Marbles
\n                             would not apply in cases of private sale between the
\n                             parties. The present purchaser therefore, has to pay
\n                             the dues of the erstwhile owner and without
\n                             clearance of the dues, the Electricity Board cannot
\n                             be called upon to extend a new electric connection
\n                             to the new purchaser.\n<\/p>\n
8.            From the rival submissions, the following admitted facts emerge: –\n<\/p>\n
                             (i)      The petitioner had purchased the property
\n                             from the erstwhile owner by virtue of a sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
                             (ii)     The deal was apparently a private deal
\n                             between the erstwhile owner and the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                             (iii)    For realization of the electricity dues, the
\n                             Respondent-J.S.E.B. has initiated a Certificate
\n                             Proceeding against the erstwhile owner.\n<\/p>\n
                             (iv)     The petitioner had submitted his application
\n                             for electric connection alongwith the requisite fee
\n                             and all the relevant documents to confirm that he
\n                             was the new owner of the property, since after the
\n                             date of its purchase.\n<\/p>\n
                             (v)      Admittedly, the prohibition, if any, made by
\n                             the order of the Certificate Officer in the Certificate
\n                             Proceedings against the erstwhile owner from
\n                             selling away the property, did not create any charge
\n                             over the property in favour of the Respondent-\n<\/p>\n
                             Board. The violation of the order may at best invite
\n                             penal or other consequences as laid down under the
\n                             law against the erstwhile owner only.\n<\/p>\n
9.            In Isha Marbles’ case (Supra), while considering the various
\nprovisions under the Electricity Act, relating to the supply of electricity to the
\nowner or occupiers of land, the Supreme Court had observed that the provisions
\nunder the Act, declared that the supply of electric energy, would be governed
\nunder the terms of a contract executed by and between the licensee and the
\nprospective consumer. The conditions, which could be imposed as per the
\nprovisions of the Act, to bind the consumer, do not provide for imposing any
\nliability upon the prospective consumer in respect of the dues towards electric
\nconsumption owed by the previous owner of the property. The Court had also
\n                              [5 ]
\n                                                           [W.P. (C) No. 6557 of 2005]<\/p>\n
observed on the facts of the case, that there was no charge on the property
\nacquired by the prospective consumer.\n<\/p>\n
                      Following the ratio as decided in the Isha Marble’s case,
\n(Supra), this Court in the case of Kanaklata Sharma (Supra), had declared that
\nthere cannot be an electric energy dues against a premises, but it could be against
\nan occupant or the consumer. The outstanding dues, as claimed by the
\nRespondents, being in the name of the erstwhile owner, the liability cannot be
\nthrust upon the purchaser of the property.\n<\/p>\n
                      In the case of Smt. Rekha Gupta (Supra), in which the facts
\nare almost identical to the facts of the present case, the Court had observed that
\nthe supply of electric energy, being guided on a personal contract between the
\nparties, namely, the licensee and the consumer, the obligations under such
\ncontracts cannot be enforced upon the third party. A Party to the contract has the
\nremedy to recover the dues from the party thereof for the non-fulfillment of the
\ncontractual obligations by filing a suit or by initiating a Certificate proceeding
\nunder the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. It is a personal liability
\nof a contracting party and such personal liability cannot be fastened with the
\nlandlord or the bona fide purchaser who is not in any manner connected with the
\nerstwhile consumer\/vendor as it is not charge over the property.\n<\/p>\n
10.            The question as to whether the Board can refuse to grant electric
\nconnection on the ground that the erstwhile occupier of the premises defaulted in
\npayment of the dues, came up for consideration before this Court, in the case of
\nSmt. Maya Devi (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
                      After discussing the relevant provisions of the Electricity
\nAct, 2003, relating to supply of electric connection, and following the ratio laid
\ndown by the Supreme Court in Isha Marble’s case (Supra), this Court had
\nobserved that the Regulations framed under the Electricity Act, specifically
\nprovides that the authority cannot deny supply of electricity on the ground that the
\nold consumer committed default in payment of dues and left the premises,
\nprovides that the new incumbent is not in any way connected with previous
\noccupier of the premises, who had committed default. Rejecting the grounds
\nadvanced by the Electricity Board, this Court had directed the Board to accept the
\napplication of the writ petitioner, for giving a fresh electric connection to his
\npremises.\n<\/p>\n
11.            In the instant case, the Respondents has not come up with any such
\nmaterial from which an inference can be drawn that the present petitioner\/the new
\npurchaser, was in any way connected with the previous owner or occupier of the
\npremises or that the petitioner had the knowledge of the dues owed by the
\nprevious owner to the Electricity Board and had undertaken any responsibility to
\nclear the dues of the Board by way of any indemnity. The judgments referred to
\n                                            [6 ]
\n                                                                         [W.P. (C) No. 6557 of 2005]<\/p>\n
             by the learned counsel for the Respondents-Board in the cases of (i) Prashant
\n             Kumar Gupta and (ii) Hyderabad Vanaspati (Supra), would not apply to the facts
\n             of the present case, since the facts in both the cases are different and indicate that
\n             there was nexus between the previous owner and the new purchaser and that the
\n             sale and purchase of the property of the previous owner was with intent to defraud
\n             the Electricity Board with the connivance of the purchaser who also had the
\n             knowledge about the Electricity dues owed by the previous owner.\n<\/p>\n
             12.            In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in this writ
\n             application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The Respondents-Board is
\n             directed to accept the application of the petitioner for giving fresh connection to
\n             the premises in question and to supply electricity to the petitioner’s premises
\n             within 30 days from the date of receipt\/production of a copy of this order, if the
\n             application of the petitioner, is otherwise in accordance with the Rules and
\n             procedure as laid down under the Electricity Act and the Regulations there under.\n<\/p>\n
             13.            Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
\n             Respondent-Board.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           (D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
\nAPK\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (C) No. 6557 of 2005 … Anup Kumar Choudhary … … Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi 2. The Chief Engineer (Electrical), J.S.E.B., Ranchi. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-03T09:21:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T09:21:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2137,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T09:21:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-03T09:21:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T09:21:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009"},"wordCount":2137,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009","name":"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T09:21:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-choudhary-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-3-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anup Kumar Choudhary vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 3 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}