Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1144 (JHR)

Dayal Steels Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation

2009-08-18

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order The grievance of the petitioner in these writ applications for which the petitioner, on earlier occasion also, moved this Court by filing a writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 6023 of 2001, is on account of non-settlement of the amount of transmission loss/line loss to which the petitioner claims entitlement under the terms of agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent D.V.C. 2. As explained by Sri M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of the original agreement, the bills for electric consumption was to be raised on the basis of the readings in the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner. This arrangement however, was not followed up in view of the subsequent change in the proposal moved by the respondent D.V.C. under which the energy bills was to be raised on the basis of the readings in the meter installed at the D.V.C. end. Considering the change in the terms of agreement, the petitioner had agreed to the proposal but subject to the condition that the supplier/respondent D.V.C., should bear the transmission loss. This counter offer of the petitioner was accepted by the D.V.C. authorities and an understanding was arrived at between them for working out a reasonable basis for calculating the transmission loss/line loss, within 30 days from the date of energizing the electric connection. 3. It appears that though the electric connection was energized and the petitioner started to avail the benefit of electric supply, but in the monthly bills raised by the respondent D. V.C., no reduction towards transmission loss was made. The petitioner filed several representations before the concerned authorities of the respondents for calculating and assessing the transmission loss and to give the benefit of concession thereof, but when no response was obtained, he filed a writ application. 4. While disposing of the writ application, this Court had directed the concerned authorities of the respondents to take a final decision in the matter of grant of transmission loss to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents were further directed to revise all the bills and thereafter the excess amount paid by the petitioner as against the bills already raised by the respondents, was to be refunded to the petitioner or adjusted against the future bills. 5. The respondents were further directed to revise all the bills and thereafter the excess amount paid by the petitioner as against the bills already raised by the respondents, was to be refunded to the petitioner or adjusted against the future bills. 5. Sri Mittal would explain that in compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court passed on 29.1.2002, the respondents had issued a letter in May, 2002 informing therein that an amount of Rupees Ten Lacs approximately, has been assessed as transmission loss/line loss for the period January, 2001 to April, 2002. The respondents did not however give any basis on which the transmission loss was assessed. Learned counsel adds that on proper assessment the loss would be around 10% which is much higher than what the respondents have considered. 6. Sri Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would explain that in compliance with the earlier order passed by this Court in the writ application, the concerned authorities of the respondents have worked out a formula on the basis of which the amount of Rs. 10,64,749/- towards transmission loss/line loss has been assessed as the amount of concession which could be given to the petitioner for the period January, 2001 to April, 2002. Learned counsel adds that the basis/criteria according to which the calculations have been made, have also been communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel refers in this context to Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. 7. From the rival submissions it appears that the calculation made by the respondents and the amount assessed by them towards transmission loss, is not acceptable to the petitioner on the ground that the formula applied is not adequate for assessing the actual loss. 8. Sri Mittal would offer a proposal by way of making an average assessment of the units consumed by the petitioner on the basis of the meter readings earlier installed at the supplier's end and on the basis of the meter readings installed at the petitioner's end which, according to the petitioner, would adequately inform the actual amount of transmission loss which the petitioner would be entitled to be reimbursed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent D.V.C. submits, on the other hand, that the formula which the petitioner would suggest may not be acceptable to the respondent D.V.C. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent D.V.C. submits, on the other hand, that the formula which the petitioner would suggest may not be acceptable to the respondent D.V.C. 10. It appears that the dispute could be properly addressed only if the concerned authorities of the respondents and the petitioner do sit together and have a detailed discussion and arrive at a mutually agreeable formula by which the assessment of the transmission loss can be made. 11. Considering the above aspects, the parties shall, by mutual consent, fix up a date and time at which the petitioner's representatives shall sit together with the Chief Engineer (Commercial), D.V.C., Kolkata and the Engineer In-charge, Ramgarh Sub-Station, D.V.C., to discuss and sort out the differences and to arrive at a mutually agreeable formula whereby the transmission loss/line loss can reasonably be assessed and an appropriate decision may be taken on the persisting dispute between the parties. This exercise must be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 12. Let both these cases be posted in the second week of 4th month from today.