The methodology for calculating delayed payment surcharge (DPS) on electricity bills should be uniform for non-L & MV Agriculture Consumers for each slab of period of delay, and the term 'month' in Clause 4.14.1 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2011 should be interpreted as an average of 30 days.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The present challenge pertains to interpretation of Clause 4.14.1 in the context of 4.14.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2011, as amended till January 22, 2020. Clause 4.14, as it appeared in the Original Tariff Regulations of 2011, promulgated on April 25, 2011, was subsequently altered by the Notification dated July 30, 2013 only in respect of the rates of surcharge. However, the methodology of levy remained the same.

2. Vide Notification dated January 22, 2020, Clause 4.14 was bifurcated into Clause 4.14.1, which prescribed the provisions of Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) in respect of non-L & MV Agricultural Consumers and Clause 4.14.2, which deals with L & MV Agricultural Consumers.

3. The modality of levy of Delayed Payment Surcharge has remained the same all through. Only the rates have been varied from time to time and lastly distinguished in 2020 between L & MV Agricultural Consumers and other consumers except L & MV Agricultural Consumers.

4. It is contended by the writ petitioners that the levy ought to be calculated in a graded manner for different slabs according to the period of default.

5. For example, if the last due date for payment of a bill is January 31, 2022, the surcharge should be calculated at the rate of 1% per month for the period from February 01 to April 30, 2022 (first Three months) + surcharge at the rates as specified for the slabs up to the date of payment, if such date falls within the first Three months. Again, in the event such delay exceeds Three months that is, the payment is made beyond Three months but within Six months, the surcharge would be counted for the period beyond the first Three months at the increased rate for such slab, which shall in turn be calculated on the total outstanding DPS, along with the rate of interest for the first slab, for the first Three months and thereafter, at the increased rate calculated on the said total of DPS + first Three months surcharge for the next Three months.

6. However, the CESC Limited has argued that such calculation should be at the applicable rate as per the length of delay, in uniform manner fixed for the entire period of delay from the last due date of payment till actual payment.

7. The petitioners rely on a report filed by the CESC Limited on April 19, 2022 which indicates that the petitioners' method of calculation of surcharge has been admitted as the right method of calculation while calculating surcharged as per Regulation 4.14.2 in respect of L & MV Agricultural Consumers.

8. However, the CESC Limited has argued that the method of calculation should be different in case of non-L & MV Agricultural Consumers merely because in Regulation 4.14.1, the period of non-payment is expressed in months whereas in Regulation 4.14.2, such period is expressed in number of days.

9. It is argued by the writ petitioners that the use of 'months' instead of 'days' to describe the period of non-payment ipso facto does not warrant a different methodology for calculation of the DPS with regard to Clauses 4.14.1 and 4.14.2. The only difference between L & MV Agricultural Consumers and other consumers is in the rates of interest.

10. The petitioners placed reliance on the Judgment of Ramdas Vithaldas Durbar Vs. S. Amerchand and Co., reported at ILR (1916) 40 Bom 630, where the Privy Council held that merely because different expressions have been used in two places in a statute, the Court would not presume the expressions to carry different interpretations.

11. In the same context, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners also places reliance on Kanhaiyalal Vishindas Gidwani Vs. Arun Dattaray Mehta and others, reported at 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1608.

12. The petitioners next contend, by placing reliance on orders passed by different Benches of