The court upheld the validity of the revised tariff and the imposition of fuel adjustment charges, load violation charges, and shunt capacitor charges, but quashed the misuse charges and directed the respondents to issue proper show cause notices before levying such charges.

( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions is by the petitioners who are covered by the category of Large Industrial Power as each one of them has a sanctioned load of mare than l00 K. W. The petitioners have set up installed furnaces for the manufacture of casting and for their factories in Delhi. These furnaces have been set up after having obtained valid licences from the respondent Corporation. For the levy of charges for the supply of electricity there are two systems of tarrif which are followed; one is the flat rate system and the other is known as two part tarrif system. The flat rate is charged on the units of energy consumed while the later system is meant for big consumers of electricity like the petitioners and is comprised of two charges-one minimum consumption guarantee charges, called demand charges and (2) energy charges for the actual amount of energy consumed. It is the later system, that is, two part tariff system which is applicable to the petitioners who are large industrial consumers. Under this system a LIP consumer pays a minimum guarantee consumption charges at the rate fixed by the respondent. If the LIP consumer does not consume quantity of electricity or no energy at all he has still to pay the minimum guarantee charges. But in case the consumer consumes more electricity the minimum guarantee charges then what is prescribed in the minimum guarantee charges, the consumer pays the minimum guarantee charges and also pays the electricity charges for the actual consumption of electricity beyond the minimum guarantee charges.

( 2 ) FOR the period from 1985-86 the respondent had fixed rates of minimum consumption charges at the rate of Rs. 40. 00 per K. V. A. for 1000 K. V. As. and Rs. 38. 00 per K. V. A. above 1000 K. V. A. The tariff for the LIP consumers in respect of the said period including the minimum guarantee charges was as indicated. However, the same was revised by a resolution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and charges from Rs. 40. 00 per K. V. A. were increased to Rs. 340. 00 per K. V. A. in respect of induction furnaces. The said resolution was challenged by a batch of writ petitions by the petitioners and the said writ petitions were dismissed by this Court by judgment dated March 1,1990.

( 3 ) BY the present writ petitions the petitioners besides challenging the tariff have also challenged the bills submitted to them by the respondent for various months on the ground that the petitioners were entitled to certain rebates which have not been allowed to them in the bills. The rebates have been claimed on the following grounds :-

(1) weekly off days; (2) peak hour load restrictions; (3) low voltage electric supply; and (4) power cuts and break downs. In addition to -the aforesaid rebates the petitioners have also challenged the inclusion of fuel adjustment charges, load violation charges, shunt capacitor charges, payment of sur-charge @ 3%, and misuse charges. In addition some of the petitioners have also challenged the provision in the tariff providing for disconnection of electricity without notice in case of theft of electricity.

( 4 ) NOTICE to show cause was issued in all petitions and various interim orders were passed. However, considering the nature of the case and the fact that by interim orders the recovery of crores of rupees was being stayed by this Court, it was directed that the petitions would be heard and finally decided at this stage itself and as such the petitions have been heard on number of days by us. Initially the respondents had filed affidavit in opposition in C. W. P. 1748/90, that is, M/s. Matsaya Metal Udyog (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (DESU) and this writ petition did not cover all the points mentioned above. Thereafter another counter affidavit was filed in opposition to C. W. P. 2345/90, that is, M/s. Ambeecee Consolidated Enterprises (1) Pvt. Ltd. The two counter affidavits covered all the points mentioned above and it was prayed by the