Prashant Kumar, J.-In these writ applications, petitioners pray for quashing the Circular No. 345, dated 11.7.2000, by which the rate of fuel surcharge have been fixed for the financial years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 in compliance of the Judgment dated 20.6.2000 (sic-26.6.2000?) of the Division Bench of Patna High Court delivered in M/s Pulak Enterprises and analogous cases?. Petitioners further pray for quashing the Circular No. 428, dated 16.8.2002, by which the provisional rate of fuel surcharge has been fixed for the financial year 1999-2000. In some of the cases, petitioners pray for quashing the Circular No. 78, dated 17.3.2000, whereby the rate of fuel surcharge for the, financial year 2000-01 has been fixed. Petitioners also pray for quashing the supplementary bills annexed in their writ applications, whereby fuel surcharge levied on the basis of revised rate fixed by the aforesaid Circulars. Petitioners further pray for a direction commanding the respondents to re-work out the rate of fuel surcharge.

2. It is relevant to mention that decision of Bihar State Electricity Board (B.S.E.B.) to levy fuel surcharge was initially challenged in Bihar 440 Volts Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh vs. Chariman, BSEB* case. However, the same was upheld by the Patna High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Later on, the B.S.E.B. vide its notification dated 27.5.1999, (published in Bihar Gazette on 29.5.1999) and Circular No. AC-Costing-44/98-99-1239 dated 31.5.1999, had revised the rate of fuel surcharge for the financial years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, which were assailed in M/s Pulak Enterprises and analogous cases. It is relevant to mention that some of the petitioners are petitioners in the above cases.

3. In the said writ applications, petitioners had not questioned the validity of fixation of rate of fuel surcharge for the financial years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. In those writ applications, only the rate of fuel surcharge fixed for the financial year 1996-97 and onward have been challenged.

The aforesaid cases disposed of by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court vide judgment dated 26.6.2000 and the same was reported in 2000(3) PLJR 552. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court had concluded that there is no infirmity in the fixation of rate of the fuel surcharge except on two grounds viz. inclusion of the so-called increase in the average unit rate of purchase from TVNL as a component of H3 and charging of a different unit rate of purchase with respect to supply of electricity by the D.V.C. to the TISCO as deemed supply by the B.S.E.B. to TISCO. Accordingly, the Division Bench of Patna High Court at para-44 of the judgment held as follows:

"44. In the result, the Board is directed to re-work out the rates of fuel surcharge for the year 1996-97 onwards after (a) deleting the purchase of electricity from the TVNL, as a component of H3, and (b) treating the so-called 'deemed supply' i.e. the supply of electricity by DVC to TISCO as supply made by DVC to the Board, as an element of D3. After re-working out the rates the Board will serve fresh bills on the concerned consumers which they shall pay within the stipulated period, failing which their electric line(s) will be disconnected in accordance with law."

4. It is worth mentioning that aggrieved with the aforesaid decisions of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, both the parties i.e., B.S.E.B. and petitioners had filed Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is relevant to mention that while the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the B.S.E.B. had provisionally revised the rate of fuel surcharge vide Circular No. 345, dated 10.7.2000 for different financial years, which are as follows:

Year Rate of Fuel Surcharge

1996-97 86.25 ps./Kwh

1997-98 137.20 ps./Kwh

1998-99 164.83 ps./Kwh

5. Later on, the B.S.E.B. vide Circular No. 428, dated 16.8.2000, had fi