2026:JHHC:7629 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.3863 of 2011 M/s Calcutta Carbide Pvt. Ltd. having its works and unit at Village Rauta, P.O. & P.S. Marar, District. Ramgarh, through its Authorized signatory Bipulananda Mahapatra, son of Late Ajaynand Mahapatra, Resident of Jaiswal Colony, Ramgarh Cantt., P.O. Ramgarh Cantt., P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh. … Petitioner Versus 1. Damodar Valley Corporation, D.V.C. Towers, V.I.P. Road, P.O & P.S Salt Lake, Kolkata-54, through Secretary of the said corporation, officiating at D.V.C. Towers, V.I.P. Road, P.O & P.S Salt Lake, Kolkata- 54. 2. The Chief Engineer (Commercial), Damodar Valley Corporation, D.V.C. Towers, V.I.P. Road, P.O & P.S Salt Lake, Kolkata-54. 3. The Superintending Engineer (E), Damodar Valley Corporation, GOMD-V, Main Road, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). 4. The Senior Divisional Engineer (E) Maintenance In-charge, Damodar Valley Corporation, GOMD-V, Main Road, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). … Respondents -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Aakash Ajit Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mrs. Debolina Sen Hirani, Advocate ------ 12/19.03.2026 This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the energy bill dated 09.11.2010 for the month of October, 2010. Further prayer is made for commanding upon the respondents to calculate the average consumption of the petitioner unit taking the average of previous 12 months prior to the date from which the meter went out of order, as per clause 11.3.1 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2005 issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission and issue a revised energy bill as per the aforesaid regulation and refund / adjust the excess amount realized from the petitioner with payable interest as per Supply Code Regulation. 2. Mrs. Debolina Sen Hirani, learned counsel appearing for the DVC fairly submits that now the DVC has recalculated the said 2026:JHHC:7629 2 energy bill and has found that petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 16,12,558/- on the basis of the final tariff order and that refund amount is being adjusted on a monthly basis in the consumer’s monthly energy bills in 24 equal installments. She also submits that the revised bill for the 2006-12 period also covers the impugned bill for the month of October bill for the October 2010 and that is the subject matter of the writ petition. 3. Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, learned AC to Mr. Ajit Kumar, appearing for the petitioner submits in view of the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the DVC, this matter can be disposed of. 4. What has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the DVC that is disclosed in Paragraph 3 to 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it transpires that the grievance of the petitioner is fulfilled. 5. As such, this writ petition is disposed of in light of the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the DVC. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 19.03.2026 R.Kumar