Smt. Radha Dokania v. The Bihar State Powerholding Company Limited And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4381 of 2015 ====================================================== Smt. Radha Dokania, wife of Surendra Kumar Dokania, Proprietor, M/s. Rajesh Industries, A/2, Large Industrial Estate, Barari, P.S. Barari, District Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, through its Director.

3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bhagalpur Urban, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Bhagalpur.

5. Bhagalpur Electricity Distribution Company Private Limited, through its General Manager, having its officer at Upper Floor, Off Reliance Footwear, Karmanchak, Khalifabag, P.O. Sujaganj & P.S. Kotwali. District Bhagalpur.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 22-04-2015 The petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondent Distribution / Holding company in not ensuring compliance of the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in exercise of powers vested under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The order passed by the Forum in Registration Case No. 15 of 2011 is dated 4.2.2013 and requires the respondents to issue a revised bill after removing the discrepancies. A further direction has been issued

Patna High Court CWJC No.4381 of 2015 (3) dt.22-04-2015 not to disconnect the line of the petitioner until the compliance of the order. It is not in dispute that the order of the Forum has not been questioned by the company before authority under Section 42(6) of the Act.

In fact a counter affidavit has been filed and in paragraph-4 thereof it has been clearly stated that the management has taken a decision to implement the order of the Forum. In view of the stand taken by the respondent company as reflected in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, nothing survives in the matter and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) S.Sb/- U