2026:JHHC:6172 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4838 of 2004 Accropoly Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Adityapur Industrial Area, IVth Phase, P.O. Gamharia, Jamshedpur through its Managing Director Deepak Goyal, son of Shri Prem Prakash Goyal resident of 18, Circuit House Area, East, P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, A body constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, having its office at HEC, Ranchi through its Chairman. 2. The Chief Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur. 3. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur Area Electricity Board, Cooperative Bank Building, Bistupur, Jamshedpur. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur. 5. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur. … … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 6848 of 2004 Accropoly Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Adityapur Industrial Area, IVth Phase, P.O. Gamharia, Jamshedpur through its Managing Director Deepak Goyal, son of Shri Prem Prakash Goyal resident of 18, Circuit House Area, East, P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, A body constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, having its office at HEC, Ranchi through its Chairman. 2. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur Area Electricity Board, Cooperative Bank Building, Bistupur, Jamshedpur. 3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur. 5. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate 2026:JHHC:6172 2 For the Resp.-JUVNL : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate --- 25/09.03.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. W.P.(C) No. 4838 of 2004 has been filed for the following reliefs: “A. For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the bill dated 1.9.2004 which is a supplementary bill as per the audit objection for a sum of Rs. 98,00,086/-being the short unit assessment against the earlier bill no. 2353 dated 1.10.2001 against pilferage of energy since the said bill liable to be set aside on the following grounds: (a) For that the raising of the said impugned bills is barred under the provisions of section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 which prohibits the Board to recover any sum from a consumer after a period of 2 years from the date when the said amount became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity. (b) For that it is a settled principle that before raising a bill under clause 16.9, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the consumer and undisputedly, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner before raising the impugned bill. (c) For that the Respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the earlier direction of the Hon'ble High Court dated 21.1.2003 passed in WPC No. 4850/2001 whereby and whereunder for the same offence in respect of the bill under clause 16.9, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the Petitioner to file a representation to the Chief Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Respondent No. 2) who was to dispose of the Petitioner's representation within a period of 2 months from the date of filing of the same, but has deliberately failed to do so. (d) For that in the criminal case filed by the Board, which was the basis of raising the impugned bill under clause 16.9, has already been decided in favour of the consumer wherein the Police has already submitted a final report in favour of the consumer as mistake of fact. B. For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 12.00 Lacs alongwith interest thereupon, which was deposited by the Petitioner in terms of the order dated 21.1.2003 passed 2026:JHHC:6172 3 in the earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner being WP (C) No. 4850/2001 in as much as because the said impugned bill was raised on the basis of the FIR /criminal proceeding and the said criminal proceeding having come to and end in favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount alongwith interest thereupon at the same rate which the Board is charging from its consumers. C. For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) or direction(s) or order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts & circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 3. W.P.(C) No. 6848 of 2004 has been filed for the following reliefs: “(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the Chief Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Board Headquarters, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) by which he has disposed of the representation of the Petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Hon'ble Court dated 21.3.2003 passed in WPC No. 4850/2001 in as much as the said order is wholly illegal, wrong and liable to be set aside because without conducting any proper inquiry and without recording any evidence the said order has been passed. (B) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) or direction(s) or order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts & circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 4. W.P.(C) No. 4838 of 2004 has been filed challenging the bill dated 01.09.2004 which is said to be a supplementary bill as per audit objection for a sum of Rs. 98,00,086/- being the alleged short unit assessment against the earlier bill no. 2353 dated 01.10.2001 on account of alleged pilferage of energy. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier a writ petition was filed numbered as W.P.(C) No. 4850 of 2001 wherein the bill dated 01.10.2001 was under challenge. The said writ - petition was disposed of enabling the petitioner to raise its grievance before the competent authority. However, at the same time, vide dated 16.10.2001 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4850 of 2001, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 12 lakhs to avoid disconnection of electricity 2026:JHHC:6172 4 and as per order dated 21.01.2003 passed in the said writ petition, the petitioner had deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs. 12 lakhs in two installments and its electrical line was reconnected. He submits that a representation was filed by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 21.01.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4850 of 2001 and ultimately, the impugned supplementary bill dated 01.09.2004 was raised which has been challenged in W.P.(C) No. 4838 of 2004. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed placing on record one order dated 31.08.2004 in which no specific amount has been mentioned, but in the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that the revised bill amounts to Rs. 43,37,961/- after adjustment of Rs. 12 lakhs already paid by the petitioner. Such statement has been made in paragraph 53 of the counter-affidavit giving the entire calculation, but no bill to that effect has been placed. Paragraph 53 of the counter affidavit is quoted as under: - “53. That with regard to the statements made by the petitioner in paragraph-48 of the writ petition, under reply, it is stated and submitted that the petitioner has to pay the balance amount/penalty issued under clause 16.9 of the Tariff to the respondent-Board. The question of return of Rs. 12 lakhs does not arise. The details of the calculation sheet of the revised bill is mentioned below:- Revision of bill of M/s Accropoloy Metal Industries Private Limited, C.D.- 200 KVA, IVth Phase, Adityapur Gamaharia, consequent upon the order dated 211.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4850 of 2001 and Chief Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Head Quarter, Ranchi, order dated 31.8.2004. Unit consumed for the last six months from the date of surprise raid/inspection on 26.9.2001. From 3/2001 to 8/2001 Consumed units = 3,51,840 Kwh 2026:JHHC:6172 5 Three times of the Consumption = 351840 x 3 = 10,55,520 Kwh. Deducting the consumed units = 10,55,520-351,840 Rest units to be charged = 7,03,680 units Energy charges- 7,03,680 units x Rs.1,78 x 3 = Rs. 37,57,651.00 F/s charges- 7,03,680 units x Rs. 2.44 x 1 = Rs. 17,16,979.00 Electricity Duty- 7,03,680 units x Rs. 0.03 x 3 = Ts. 63,331.00 Total Rs. 55,37,961.00 Rs. 12,00,000.00 already deposited by the petitioner-consumer on the Hon'ble Court's order, hence amount realizable comes to Rs. 55,37,961.00 - (Minus) Rs. 12,00,000.00 - Rs. 43,37,961.00 only. Hence, this amount will substitute the earlier demand of Rs. 98,00,086.00 of Jharkhand State Electricity Board raised in the second supplementary bill. It is further stated and submitted that the draft calculation of the realizable amount has got the approval of the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur.” 7. The learned counsel has thereafter submitted that the raising of such bills are also barred under section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and consequently, the order dated 31.08.2004 has been challenged in another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6848 of 2004. He has also submitted that there is some allegation of backdating with respect to the order and the bill. He submits that the date of the order is 31.08.2004, which as per the counter-affidavit results in revision of the bill, but the bill of 98 lakhs and odd is dated 01.09.2004 and apparently, there is a mismatch between the bill and the order. 2026:JHHC:6172 6 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that essentially the matter relates to billing dispute and provision of clause 16.9 of tariff is attracted. He has also submitted that the point as to whether the impugned bill was time-barred or not, is also a matter of fact which requires proper examination. He has also submitted that when these writ petitions were filed, at that point of time, the appropriate forum regarding redressal of grievance in connection with the bill or orders of the GM, was not available. However, as on date, the petitioner has remedy before an appropriate forum namely, “Vidyut Upabhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum”. He submits that the petitioner may be permitted to raise his grievance regarding the bill and the order which are involved in the present case and appropriate time-frame may be given so that the case be entertained by the forum. The learned counsel also submits that if such an order is passed, the JUVNL will fully cooperate with disposal of the matter on merits. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, this Court is of the view that disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case and the point of limitation itself would be a mixed question of fact and law. In such circumstances, appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to move the aforesaid forum namely, “Vidyut Upabhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum” for redressal of its grievances not only in connection with the order dated 31.08.2004, but also in connection with the calculation which has been projected by the respondents in the counter-affidavit whereby the new amount has been projected although no bill has been raised so far as per the records. 10. The petitioner may avail the aforesaid alternative remedy within a period of six months from today and shall also produce the entire records of both the writ petitions before the said forum. If the petitioner moves within six months before the Forum, the Forum shall decide the matter on merits within six months thereafter. The respondents are directed to cooperate for early disposal of the matter. 2026:JHHC:6172 7 11. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. 12. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appropriate petition seeking interim relief along with the main petition before the aforesaid Forum and the interim relief be also considered by the Forum at the earliest. Till the prayer for interim relief as aforesaid is considered by the Forum, there shall be no disconnection of electricity subject to payment of current bills, if not already deposited. 13. All Pending interlocutory applications are dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:09.03.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:12.05.2026