JUDGMENT

1. As the common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions and that is why, all these writ petitions have been heard together.

2. The petitioner(s) have preferred these writ petitions for direction upon the respondents to carry out adjustment of the Monthly Energy Bill(s) of the petitioner(s)s unit for the period commencing May, 2010 to October, 2012 in terms of Clause 5(3) of 2009 Tariff Regulation of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. The further prayer is made for direction upon the respondents to carry out necessary calculation of the amount to be refunded to the petitioner(s) in terms of Regulation 5(3) of the 2009 Tariff Regulations of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as also in terms of the judgment of this Court rendered in W.P.(C) No.4097 of 2011 along with analogous cases dated 20.03.2012, further, read with Multi Year Tariff Order dated 04.09.2014 passed by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16.

3. Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) submits that Clause 5(3) of 2009 Tariff Regulations of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission provides for refund to or recovery from the beneficiaries or the transmission customers, as the case may be. He further submits that in view of the order dated 20.03.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.4097 of 2011 and Tariff Order dated 04.09.2014 of the year 2013-14 and 2015-16 the entitlement of the petitioner(s) towards refund cannot be disputed. He further submits that the petitioner(s) as High Tension Consumer of Damodar Valley Corporation [hereinafter referred to as DVC] having supply of electricity as 33 KV through Primary Dedicated Direct Transmission Lines bearing Consumer No.34140. The DVC is a licensee under section 14, 4 th proviso of the Electricity Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2003] and is engaged in the business of generation and transmission of electricity in the State of Jharkhand and West Bengal. Mr. Pasari, the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry in the interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all area, rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. After coming into effect of the Act, no utility can claim tariff from its consumers on its own, unless the tariff is determined by the Appropriate Commission. The judgment dated 10.05.2010 of the learned APTEL in this regard has been referred by Mr. Pasari, the learned counsel. Para 104 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

''104. Under the above circumstances, the Application filed by the DVC in IA No.349/2009 seeking for the permission to continue to collect the tariff fixed by the DVC under section 20 of the DVC Act could not be sustained (1) especially when the final order had already been passed by the Central Commission on 06.08.2009 fixing the tariff; (2) particularly when the said tariff order has not been stayed by this Tribunal and (3) more particularly when we feel prima facie that impugned tariff order passed by the Central Commission is valid.''

4. In view of the above order of the learned APTEL, the DVC for the first time under the Electricity Act, 2003 started raising bills provisionally as per tariff determined by CERC as also in terms of Appellate Tribunal order dated 10.05.2010 and as per the Regulation 5(3) of 2000 Regulation of CERC. By order dated 03.10.2006, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission has determined the tariff of the DVC f