Appeal No.57 Of 2016 and Ia Nos.144 and 145 Of 2016. Case: Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs 1. Sri Ram Steels 2. Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Uttarakhand High Court

Case NumberAppeal No.57 Of 2016 and Ia Nos.144 and 145 Of 2016
CounselMr. Himanshu Shekhar, Mr. Aabhas Parimal and Mr. Navin Kumar, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Mohit Kr. Shah and Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, Advs.
JudgesMrs. Ranjana P. Desai, Chairperson and Mr. I.J. Kapoor, Technical Member
IssueElectricity Act, 2003 - Section 42(6)
Judgement DateAugust 22, 2016
CourtUttarakhand High Court


Mrs. Ranjana P. Desai, Chairperson

  1. In this appeal, the Appellant - M/s Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited has challenged Order dated 9/5/2014 passed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission ( “ State Commission ” ). By the impugned order , the State Commission has directed the Appellant to implement the order of the Ombudsman.

  2. We are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is necessary to state the gist of facts to substantiate this conclusion of ours. It is the case of Respondent No. 1 that it had taken electricity connection at Mohanpur, District Giridih under the HTSS tariff for a contract demand of 2175 KVA for running its induction furnace unit. The Appellant started levying KVA charges on Respond ent No.1 on the basis of 100% contract demand and not on the basis of actual consumption , in violation of tariff order for 2003- 04, applicable with effect from 0 1/01/2004. It is the case of Respondent No .1 that with effect from 01/01/2004 Jharkhand State Electricity Board has no power to raise bills on the basis of 100% con tract demand as prescribed by 1999 tariff order. Respondent No.1 therefore challenged the said action of the Appellant before the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Nivaran Forum, Jharkhand Ranchi ( “ VUSNF ” ). A complaint was registered as C ase No.45 of 2007. VUSNF by order dated 18/ 03/2008 allowed Respondent No.1’s complaint and held that the Appellant is not entitled to bill Respondent No.1 on the basis of 100% contract demand but Respondent No.1 should be billed on the basis of actual KVA recorded in the meter in each month. Bills for the period from January 2004 to February 2008 were quashed and the Appellant was directed to issue fresh bills and adjust the excess money realised in the subsequent bills with interest.

  3. The Appellant challenged the said order before the Electricity Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the said Appeal was dismissed by a detailed judgment dated 04/09/2008. According to Respondent No1, it also filed an a ppeal for implementation of the said order and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 27/ 05/2009 with a direction to the Appellant to implement the order dated 18/ 03/2008 passed by the VUSNF without any furt her delay. The Appellant then challenged the said order of the Electricity Ombudsman before the Jharkhand High Court in writ petition being W.P. (C) No.4903 of 2009. The said petition was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT