Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Virender Singh, C.J.—While taking up LPA No. 245 of 2014 relating to one M/s. Sanjeev Trading Company, who was refused fresh electric connection for the reason that more than Rs. 40 lacs towards consumption of electricity was due on the said premises, which appeal was ultimately dismissed, the Court took a serious note of the fact that there are several cases from whom huge amount of electricity dues have not been recovered by Jharkhand State Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (for short JSUVNL), as such directed JSUVNL to furnish an affidavit along with complete chart in the shape of a particular format as indicated in the order dated 04.12.2012 whereby the aforesaid L.P.A. came to be disposed of finally. Registrar General of this Court was also directed to place the affidavit for treating it as Public Interest Litigation.

Needful has now been done in terms of the direction contained in the order dated 04.12.2014. One Kamleshwar Kant Verma, Managing Director of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short JBVNL), has furnished an affidavit giving details of the defaulters relating to Electricity Supply Circle, Ranchi, Electricity Supply Circle, Jamshedpur, Electricity Supply Circle, Dhanbad, Electricity Supply Circle, Chaibasa and Electricity Supply Circle, Chas.

Let this affidavit filed by Managing Director, JBVNL, be treated as a material for the instant Public Interest Litigation. Registry is directed to diarise it accordingly. It shall be styled as "Court on its own motion v. State of Jharkhand and Others".

The following are arrayed as respondents at this stage:--

"1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary.

Jharkhand State Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Managing Director."

Notice.

Mr. Rajesh Shankar, Government Advocate, who is present in the Court, on asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Ajit Kumar, appears for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Service is thus complete.

At the very outset, Mr. Ajit Kumar appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that with regard to 47 industries in which Tata Yogda Limited, falling at Sl. No. 26 of the list annexed with the affidavit, is the biggest defaulter as from this industry a sum of Rs. 2,75,47,36,944/- is due as electricity consumption charges, the litigation is pending either in this Court losing an opportunity on account of fixing the age as 19 years instead of 18 years would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner and all other similarly situated candidates. Hence, this petition.

Per contra Md. Schail Anwar, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, submitted that as many as 24000 candidates are appearing in the ensuing examination for 1000 posts of Junior Engineers and that at this belated stage the petitioner wants to put the entire selection process on hold. He submitted that the petitioner had ample time to throw challenge to rule 8 of Service Rules of 2013 but he had been sleeping over the matter and is now awake from deep slumber at the fag end of the day. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that even otherwise uniform pattern has been adopted for all the candidates for the post of Junior Engineers, therefore the petitioner cannot call it arbitrary or discriminatory action of the respondents so as to attract Article 14, of the Constitution. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition in limine itself.

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, we do not find any reason to show our indulgence. So far as Service Rules of 2013 are in place and not amended, they have to be followed. We are conscious of the fact that the representation of the petitioner at one stage was considered favourably by the Secretary of the concerned Department but could not be brought to its logical end for any reason whatsoever, still any indulgence by the Court at this stage would not be in larger public interest when as many as 24000 candidates are appearing in the selection process scheduled defaulters/consumers under Certificate Cases, therefore, some methodology has to be evolved for completing the entire process within the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (for short ''Recovery Act, 1914'').

We, therefore, suggest for constitution of a Committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary of the State with Energy Secretary of the State, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, JSUVNL and Managing Director, JBVNL to devise a method by which all the Certificate Cases pending before the District Certificate Officers at different places are taken up without any further waste of time. The said Committee shall be headed by Chief Secretary only.

A direction to all the Deputy Commissioners for execution of Certificates, especially in the cases where orders under Section 10 of the Recovery Act, 1914 or distress warrants have already been issued, is required at the end of Chief Secretary so that the recovery of dues from defaulters is not delayed.

Mr. Ajit Kumar would not only place on record the complete particulars with regard to Certificate Cases pending at other places also, the said list shall be provided to the Committee to be constituted as indicated hereinabove.

A complete report in this regard shall be placed before this Court in three weeks'' time expecting compliance as required at the end of Chief Secretary.

List again on 24.02.2015.

Let copy of this order be despatched to Chief Secretary of the State by Registrar General of the Court immediately. Mr. Rajesh Shankar, G.A., appearing for the State and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall also be provided with the copy of the order.