{"id":27731,"date":"2002-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002"},"modified":"2016-01-24T09:39:50","modified_gmt":"2016-01-24T04:09:50","slug":"automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity … on 10 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity … on 10 September, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: V Prasad<\/div>\n
Bench: V Prasad<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Vikramaditya Prasad, J. <\/p>\n
 1. This writ application has been filed (i) for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to restore the electric connection of the petitioner-factory which was disconnected on 26.8.1999 on the basis of an inspection made in which 12 HP has been illegally added to the load of 77.5 HP; (ii) for restoration of the electric connection of the petitioner-factory as the disconnection was made in violation of Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act (for short, as the Act); (iii) for a declaration that the lighting load in any industry cannot be added with the connected load of the consumer for the purpose of calculation of the total connected load; and (iv) for a direction upon the respondents not to raise any bill on the basis of the said inspection report by holding that the petitioner has exceeded the contract demand and for issuance of any other relief.\n<\/p>\n
 2. During the course of hearing of the writ application, it has been submitted that the connection has already been restored; consequently, the prayer relating to restoration of the connection has now become infructuous. But the inspection dated 26.8.1999, on the basis of which the disconnection was made, will be relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the rest of raised issues in this writ application. Thus, the following two questions are relevant ;\n<\/p>\n
 (i) whether the respondents can add lighting load to the load of the machine installed in the factory for the purpose of calculation of the entire load and whether the lighting load in a consumer factory would be treated to be a separate load; and  <\/p>\n
 (ii) whether a bill on the basis of other commercial tariff or domestic tariff to be raised in respect thereof.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The petitioner is a small scale industry firm. For doing its business, it had entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board, which, according to the petitioner, is a State; for connection of electric supply, under LTIS Tariff and initially it had a connected load of 99 HP. As per the new Tariff effective from 1.7.1993, the consumers having load of upto 79 HP were to remain LTIS consumers. Therefore, the petitioner on 21.6.1993, wrote a letter to (Annexure 1) to the respondents to reduce the petitioner’s load from 99 HP to 79 HP because under the old tariff the consumer who had electrical load upto 99 HP was to be treated as LTIS consumer. Consequent upon its letter, the factory was inspected on 19.7.1993 and the total connected load of the petitioner was found to be 79 HP. In this inspection note (Annexure 2), the lighting load of the petitioner’s factory was not taken into consideration. The only load connected with the electrical motors were taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of the current load. The bill was being paid by the petitioner on the basis of the 79 HP under LTIS Tariff and no current charge was due against the petitioner. Time to time, it is asserted by the petitioner, the factory was inspected but never the load beyond the connected load was detected. Then on 7.12.1998 an electronic meter was installed by the Board itself in the factory and no anomaly was detected in respect of the connected load. Annexure 3 is the meter replacement report. Then a theft occurred in the petitioner’s premises and the petitioner lodged an FIR (Annexure 4), and thereafter for the security of the factory, the petitioner installed Additional Vapor and Halogen Lamps in the factory premises and also at some other places in office and also where the security guards were deputed, after purchasing these lamps (Annexure 5), the petitioner thereafter filed a writ application being CWJC No. 957 of 1997 (R) for a direction upon the respondents not to raise bills on the basis of Monthly Minimum Guarantee charges (for short MMG), rater on the basis of Annual Minimum Guarantee charges (for short AMG). The said writ application was disposed of along with many other writ applications (Annexure 6), and it was held that the Board is not entitled to raise any bill on the basis of MMG but rather on the basis of AMG, besides a direction that the Board cannot raise bill on the. basis of HP, rather it can raise bill on the basis of BHP. Even thereafter, the respondents’ continued to raise bill on the basis of MMG. Therefore, as it was being done in violation of the order aforesaid, the petitioner wrote letter (Annexure 7), to the respondents to rectify the bills which is apparent from Annexure 8. This, according to the petitioner, annoyed the respondents. As<\/p>\n
the petitioner threatened them of contempt proceedings, they got the premises inspected on 26.8.1999 and an inspection report (Annexure 9) was prepared by them and this report, according to the petitioner, was erroneous because even 77.5 HP. Connected load was wrongly calculated because item No. 16 of the inspection note says that it is of 7 HP whereas in the earlier inspection with regard to this machine only 2 HP has been shown. But in this inspection note, in order to harass the consumer, the respondents added the lighting load of 9 KW or 12 HP. Thus, the total connected load was taken as 89.54 HP. In para 24 of the writ application, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that only connected load of the motors had to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of load and the word used in the Tariff was “connected load” and in common parlance, “connected load” was known as connected load of the motors connected to the machines and not lighting load. Therefore, lighting load could not be added with the connected toad for the purpose of calculation, so it is mala fide and because of this calculation, the disconnection was made, which has been discussed earlier. The petitioner apprehends that the bill on the basis of inspection report would be raised on the basis of HT and the respondents have threatened to do so.\n<\/p>\n
 4. The respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit, denying that the supply was disconnected in pursuance of the inspection note dated 26.8.1999. It was averred by the respondents that the petitioner had already entered into an agreement with the Board for consumption of 79 HP load, which was to be treated as sanctioned load and therefore, the petitioner would not consume beyond the contracted load because the petitioner is supposed to avail load within the sanctioned load and in its exercise, it can segregate the total load in accordance with its utility, but within the contracted load. The petitioner is supposed to avail within that 79 HP to “meet its requirements” and if the petitioner is allowed to avail beyond the load of 79 HP, the agreement executed between the parties will be meaningless and <\/p>\n
it will be a breach of the term of contract. With regard to the report submitted on 19.7.1993 (Annexure 2), it has been averred by the respondents that it was a meter replacement report and on that date, the load was found to be 75 HP and the remaining load which was being consumed for lighting was spared, otherwise the load would have been more than 79 HP, which will be clear from the inspection report dated 26.8.1999 (Annexure 9). It was denied that the factory premises was inspected from time to time and no load more than the sanctioned load was detected. It was further averred that admittedly the petitioner was availing the power of lighting etc. to the extent of 9 KW, but on the other hand, the petitioner was not accepting the total load of 89.54 HP, which is not justified on the part of the petitioner. With regard to the connected load, it has been said that the interpretation of the connected load by the petitioner is wrong and it has been added that if the load of the motor is calculated for the purpose of calculating the connected load, then the lighting load of 9 KW should also be considered. With regard to the notice under Section 24(1) of the Act, it has been submitted that show cause to the petitioner is not required to be given because the opportunity had already been given to the petitioner by the Board to regularise the supply as per HT tariff as the petitioner was availing the power of 89.54 HP.\n<\/p>\n
 5. During the course of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Annexure 2 showed only the load of the connected motors and it does not include the lighting load and this is attributable to some mistake on the part of the AEE who gave this report. There is no dispute so ar as the loads of the motors are concerned. The dispute is whether the lighting load should be included in the connected load of the factory or whether there should be a separate charge for such lighting or whether the lighting load can be added to calculated load which converts the consumer from LTIS consumer to HT consumer.\n<\/p>\n
 6. It is relevant here to examine some of the provisions of the Act, Tariff Notification issued by the Bihar State Electricity<\/p>\n
Board (for short Notification) and the Financial and Account Code issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board (in short Code) to find the answers of these questions.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was a LTIS consumer prior to addition of the lighting load. The provisions of Rule 1 at page 29 of the Tariff are relevant, which read as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
  ” 1 (i) For use of Electrical motors and other industrial appliances and medium power of less than 80 HP. If consumer desires to take more than on LT connection in the same premises the total installed load shall be 80 HP…….\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) Existing consumer having load of 80 HP and above will be charged at rates applicable to HTS-1.”\n<\/p>\n
 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to this provision, argued that the load has to be calculated on the basis of electrical motors and other industrial appliances and that will include lighting load because in this clause, the lighting load has not been distinguished from the connected load. He submits that lighting load will be covered by the phrase “other industrial appliances”.\n<\/p>\n
 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents seriously challenged this interpretation. The phrase “other industrial appliances” has not been defined in the Notification, Code or in the Act. Therefore, recourse has to be taken to its Dictionary meaning. Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word, ‘appliance’ “as thing applied as means to an end; utensil, device, equipment, fire engine”. The word devise is used to mean,–“plan, contrivance, invention, things adopted for the purpose or design for a particular function, drawing, design, figure or motto”. The Chambers Dictionary defines the word, ‘appliance’ “as application; an instrument or tool used for a particular purpose; apparatus; compliance”. A commercial industry is to produce something and that production is done by the motors, as in this case. Therefore, the meaning given in the Oxford Dictionary appears to be more applicable in the instant circumstances. It is the motors which are the tools which lead to an end product. It can be argued that in absence of lamps, such <\/p>\n
motors cannot be run and therefore, lamps are also the appliances covered within the same meaning. In my opinion, this will elongate meaning of the word appliance and stretch it too far. I am of the view that the word “industrial appliances” do not mean and include the lamps and other security lights though utilised in a factory, but are not directly related to production. Accordingly such security lights and other lights used for the purposes of illuminating administrative area as also the security area do not come within the meaning of industrial appliances.\n<\/p>\n
 9. The word, “connected load” has been defined in Clause (14A) of the Section 2 of the Code, which reads as under :–\n<\/p>\n
  ‘”Connected Load’ means the sum total of the installed capacities of all the energy consuming devices on the consumers’ premises which can be operated simultaneously, excluding spare or stand by capacity in the form of extra units or larger ratings than necessary.”\n<\/p>\n
 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stressed on the word “all” used in the aforesaid definition and submits that any device that consumes electricity has to be included within the definition. On analysis of this definition, an appropriate meaning of “installed capacity” has to be found. It is also important to see in this context whether all the energy consuming devices can be operated simultaneously or not. If the simultaneous operation is not there, then in that circumstance, the devices which cannot be operated simultaneously, cannot be included within the meaning of sum total of installed capacity and consequently, they cannot be included in the definition of connected load. Though this aspect of the matter was not discussed by either party, but it can be said that there is no relation between the operation of the motors and lamps and security lamps etc. in the Administrative, Security Guard Zone of the premises. Thus, it cannot be said that the electrical consumption in the operational area as well as administrative and security areas are operating simultaneously. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the devices that are being used in the Administrative Offices, Security<\/p>\n
Guards’ residence and also at the different places of the factory for the security office are the devices not covered by the definition of the ‘connected load’, though these are consuming electricity. Thus, such consumptions are neither covered under the definition of “industrial appliances”, nor under the “connected load”. The Rule 16(3)(b) (page 30) of the Tariff 1993 reads as under :–\n<\/p>\n
  “All HT consumers are required to provide a separate circuit and a meter for recording the consumption for domestic and office purposes as the electricity duty is assessable for this consumption at a higher rate per unit, as against, the rate of electricity duty per unit payable by the consumer for consumption other than domestic and office purposes…….”\n<\/p>\n
 Thus a clear direction has been given in respect of HT consumers that they should obtain a separate meter for such (security, administrative etc.) consumption whereas no such separate direction has been given in the Tariff in respect of LTIS. The question is whether, in the aforesaid circumstances, when no direction is given in respect of LTIS consumers, can it be concluded that such lighting consumptions made by the LTIS consumers are included in the connected load. I have already stated that in connected load, such lighting consumptions are not included. Therefore, even a silence is maintained with regard to the LTIS consumers in Tariff, it will not mean that a concession has been given to the LTIS consumers that the electricity being consumed in respect of the lighting load will be included in the connected load or no payment is required for such consumption.\n<\/p>\n
 10. One argument may be that certain free units even in the form of domestic consumption can be allowed and therefore, is included in the contracted load because in absence of those consumption on security etc., the factory cannot run. I wish to take an analogy here. Every passenger in a train is authorised to carry luggage upto a particular limit and for that no extra charge is required, but for this concession, there is some express provision in the relevant Acts and Rules. If there is no such express provision, then in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the LTIS consumers are entitled to consume electricity for security and administrative purposes and for that, they will not have to pay. This enquiry is necessary because of that liberty is granted, in absence of any express provision to that effect, then any unscrupulous LTIS consumer may use it to its greatest magnitude for his benefit, to the loss of the Board.\n<\/p>\n
 11. In the result, I come to the following answers to the questions posed earlier :–\n<\/p>\n
 (i) The lighting load, i.e. the loads on the lamps in the security, administrative zones, and for such purposes are separate loads and cannot be included in the terms “connected load”. They are, thus, separate loads and separate bill with regard to such consumptions are required to be raised; and  <\/p>\n
 (ii) The supplementary bills cannot be raised after adding the lighting load to the connected load. Consequently, it is held that the respondents were not justified in raising bills on the basis of adding the lighting loads to the connected loads.\n<\/p>\n
 It is also held that since the petitioner was consuming electricity on such lighting loads, he is liable to pay for that and the respondents are entitled to realise the same with effect from the date of inspection made on 26.8.1999 on the same basis on which it is realised from the HT consumers for such lighting consumptions under Clause 16.3 of the Tariff or on any other basis which may be applicable in such case.\n<\/p>\n
 12. Before I part with, I wish to observe that when the installed capacity is noted, the number and the make of the motors and other industrial appliances are not noted and therefore, argument is raised that at the time of installation, the capacities of motors were different, but thereafter the consumers increased the capacities of the motors by replacing other motors and thereby they commit pilferage of the electrical power. The Board is advised to consider and thereafter, if found appropriate, issue circulars that at the time of installation of the motors and other industrial appliances, the number and make of the motors and other details should also<\/p>\n
be recorded so that the scope of mischief is lessened and mischief is detected in future, whenever other inspections are made.\n<\/p>\n
 13. With the aforesaid observations\/directions, this writ application is
\nallowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity … on 10 September, 2002 Author: V Prasad Bench: V Prasad JUDGMENT Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. This writ application has been filed (i) for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to restore the electric connection of the petitioner-factory which was disconnected on 26.8.1999 on […]<\/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-27731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAutomobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity ... on 10 September, 2002 - 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\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-24T04:09:50+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity … on 10 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T04:09:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2953,\"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\\\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T04:09:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity … on 10 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity ... on 10 September, 2002 - 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\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-24T04:09:50+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity … on 10 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T04:09:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002"},"wordCount":2953,"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\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002","name":"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity ... on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T04:09:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/automobile-ancillary-industries-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Automobile Ancillary Industries vs Jharkhand State Electricity … on 10 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/27731","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=27731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}