← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/7185/2015disposed

Arvendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-11-19Mr. Justice Vikash Jain3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7185 of 2015 =========================================================== Arvendra Singh aged about 54 years Son of Late Santlal Singh, Resident of Village and P.O. - Chipura Khurd, P.S. - Gaurichak, District - Patna PIN - 804453 and managing director of M/S Kuldeep Ash Techno Biotech Pvt. Ltd. At & P.O. - Chipura Khurd, P.S. - Gaurichak, District - Patna PIN - 804453 .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Energy Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Industry Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Chairman-cum-Chief Managing Director, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailly Road Patna.

4. The Managing Director (Revenue), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailly Road Patna.

5. The Superintending Engineer Electrical, Patna Circle, Patna.

6. The Executive Engineer Electrical, Masaurhi, District - Patna.

7. The Assistant Engineer Punpun, District Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For Respondent-State : Mr. S.K. Mandal, SC 3 Mrs. Neelam Kumari, AC to SC 3 For Respondent-Company: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Kr. Verma, Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocates =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-11-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities specially respondent no. 6 to reconnect the electric supply to M/s Kuldeep Ash Techno Biotech Pvt. Limited; and to give benefits of Industrial Incentive Policy 2011 covered under Annexures 5 and 6/A to the petitioner's company namely, Kuldeep Ash Techno Biotech Pvt. Limited.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7185 of 2015 dt.19-11-2018 2/3

2. As none appeared on behalf of the petitioner the matter was passed over for a few cases. However, on repeat call the petitioner was again not represented.

3. A perusal of the averment in the writ petition discloses that the petitioner is aggrieved by disconnection of the electricity to the company premises on 26.02.2015, as well as non-grant of the benefits under the Industrial Incentive Policy 2011.

4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-Power Company relies on the counter affidavit to submit that the grievances of the petitioner have already been redressed. It is submitted that the line of the petitioner was in fact disconnected on 21.03.2015 after due date of payment on 09.03.2015 but it has wrongly been submitted by the petitioner that his line was disconnected on 26.02.2015. It is further stated that the certificate for relief/benefit under Industrial Incentive Policy 2011 was issued by the General Manager, District Industry Centre, Patna on 27.03.2015 which fell after the date of disconnection on 21.03.2015. On the representation of the petitioner, verification was made and the petitioner was granted the benefit under the Industrial Incentive Policy 2011 by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Masaurhi. A request for deposit of RC =DC (line reconnection and disconnection) charge was sent to the petitioner once again on 01.07.2017 vide letter no. 1359 dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.7185 of 2015 dt.19-11-2018 3/3 30.06.2015. The petitioner then deposited Rs. 1800/- plus RC + DC charge vide receipt no. 500073 dated 01.07.2013 and line of the petitioner was reconnected by the Junior Electrical Engineer, E.S. Section, Sampatchak/AEE, ESSD, Punpun and a registered letter was also sent by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Masaurhi vide letter no. 1359 dated 30.06.2015 regarding grant of benefit under Industrial Incentive Policy 2011.

5. Having regard to the stand of the respondent-Power Holding Company in its counter affidavit as noted above, which has not been disputed as no rejoinder thereto has been filed by the petitioner, it would appear that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed during the pendency of the writ petition.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 24.11.2018 Transmission Date N.A.