Back
2010 Supreme(Jhk) 864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
DABBIRU GANESHRAO PATNAIK, J.
Swastik Insulated Wires and Strips - Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 313 of 2004
Decided On : 29-01-2010
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.S. Mittal
For the Respondent: V.P. Singh, M/s. Rajesh Shankar and Abhay Prakash
The court established that the demand for payment under the H.T. tariff and A.M.G. charges was illegal and unjustified, and the delayed payment surcharge (D.P.S.) levied on the disputed amounts was unjustified and illegal.
Headnote:
Electricity Tariff Dispute - Bihar State Electricity Board - 1993 Tariff, Electricity Act 2003 - The court quashed the disputed bills raised by the Bihar State Electricity Board and directed the refund of the amount realized from the petitioner. The court found that the demand for payment of differential tariff and A.M.G. charges was illegal and unjustified. The court also held that the delayed payment surcharge (D.P.S.) levied on the disputed amounts was unjustified and illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a factory, entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board for L.T.I.S. connection. The Board later demanded payment under the H.T. tariff, disconnected the electricity supply, and raised inflated bills. The petitioner filed multiple writ applications challenging the Board's decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Board's demand for payment under the H.T. tariff and A.M.G. charges was illegal and unjustified. The court also held that the delayed payment surcharge (D.P.S.) levied on the disputed amounts was unjustified and illegal.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Board could raise the differential Tariff of H.T. without supplying the H.T. line, and whether the Board could realize the A.M.G. charges for the period of disconnection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Board's demand for payment under the H.T. tariff and A.M.G. charges was illegal and unjustified. The court also held that the delayed payment surcharge (D.P.S.) levied on the disputed amounts was unjustified and illegal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application, quashed the disputed bills, and directed the refund of the amount realized from the petitioner. The court also directed the Board to pay the amounts due to the petitioner against the materials supplied by it.
JUDGMENT :
D.G.R. PATNAIK, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated-08.12.2000 (Annexure-21), passed by the Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, refusing to accept the petitioner's prayer as contained in its representation, which was filed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1615 of 1998 (R).
(ii) For quashing the supplementary Bill of Rs. 7,78,886/-, raised on the basis of the order dated-16.03.1998, passed by the Chairman, B.S.E.B. on the basis of the H.T. tariff though during the period, the petitioner was having, L.T. Connection only.
(iii) For quashing the order dated-28.11.2001, by which a Committee constituted by the Chairman, B.S.E.B. has held that no executive revision of the order passed by the Chairman, B.S.E.B., is possible,
(iv) For quashing the final bill for a sum of Rs. 12,13,881/-, which basically includes the bill for the disconnection period between 14.02.1997 to 11.08.1998 and delayed payment surcharge levied thereupon,
(v) For quashing the A.M.G. Bill for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99, which has been raised for the period when there was no electric connection.
(vi) For issuing a direction upon the Respondents to release the amounts due to the petitioner.
3. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows:
The petitioner has set up its Factory in 1978 for manufacturing Insulated winding wires & conductors. The B.S.E.B. was one of the purchasers of the petitioner's products.
Before setting up of the Factory, the petitioner entered into an Agreement with the Respondent-B.S.E.B. on 05.09.1977 for the L.T.I.S. connection having connected load of 90 H.P.
The petitioner's unit started production on 01.02.1978.
The petitioner entered into another Agreement with the Respondent-B.S.E.B. on 04.12.1980 with a load of 31 HP, totalling its load to 123 HP.
On 01.07.1993, a new Tariff was introduced by the Bihar State Electricity Board under which the consumers having load of above 80 HP were to be billed in accordance with the H.T. Tariff.
Prior to the introduction of the new Tariff, the petitioner by its letter dated-10.06.1983 (Annexure-1), requested the Respondent-B.S.E.B. to reduce its connected load from 92 HP to 75 HP.
This was followed by another letter of request dated 08.09.1993 (Annexure-2), and again by another letter dated-25.11.1993 (Annexure-3).
Almost one year later, by letter dated-08.09.1994 (Annexure-4), the Electrical Executive Engineer informed the petitioner that the petitioner is required to change the connection from LT to HT and calling upon the petitioner to execute an Agreement in the prescribed Format.
Though the petitioner's request for reducing the load was not considered but in the light of the directions of the Electrical Executive Engineer, the petitioner vide its letter dated 22.02.1995 (Annexure-6), applied for 90 KVA load in H.T. Connection.
In response, by letter dated-25.03.1995 (Annexure-7), the Respondent-B.S.E.B. informed the petitioner that the load of 90 K.V.A. was sanctioned.
A copy of the H.T. Agreement (Annexure-8) was supplied to the petitioner on 14.05.1996 and the H.T. Agreement was executed by and between the petitioner and the B.S.E.B. on 18.07.1995.
More than one year after the execution of the H.T. Agreement, the Respondents raised a bill dated-04.12.1996 (Annexure-9), demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 18.84 Lakhs towards the H.T. Charges calculated from October, 1989 till the date of billing.
The petitioner protested against raising of such an exorbitant bill amount denying its liability to pay the H.T. Charges from October, 1989 and had submitted several letters requesting the Respondents authorities to withdraw the Bill.
In response to the petitioner's protest, the Respondent-B.S.E.B. had constituted a Committee to consider the bill in the light of the petitioner's objections an
