The court upheld that a voluntarily entered agreement for billing practices, despite subsequent legislative changes, remains binding on the parties involved unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Both these Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter but W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002 has been filed with a slightly different prayer which was required after partial compliance of the prayer made in W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 by the respondents of the said writ petition, hence, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is a medium scale industry and it had set up its plant at village Chaha in the district of Hazaribagh for manufacturing of steel ingots/ billets as well as Ferro Alloys. In July, 2000, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent- D.V.C. for supply of electrical energy with an initial contract demand of 3 MVA (3000 KVA). The petitioner constructed a sub-station in its premises under the supervision of the respondents and the same was inspected and approved by the competent authority of Central Electricity Department, New Delhi. Subsequently, there was an offer given by the respondent- D.V.C. on 08.01.2001 in terms of the decision taken by the D.V.C. Management that the tariff meter will be installed at the D.V.C. Premises only and the petitioner was requested to convey its acceptance. On the same day, the petitioner agreed to accept the installation of the tariff meter at D.V.C. Sub-station at Ramgarh for billing purposes provided that the line loss/transmission loss from D.V.C. Ramgarh Sub-station to the factory be allowed to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent issued a direction to its authorities giving clearance for commencing electric supply with contract demand of 3 MVA. The electric line of the petitioner was analyzed on 24.01.2001. The contract demand was enhanced to 5 MVA and subsequently in August, 2001 it was finally enhanced to 7 MVA. The respondents started raising bills on the basis of meter reading installed at its Sub-station at Ramgarh but no line loss/transmission loss was given; as was agreed upon between the parties. It is contended by the petitioner that in general loss on account of line loss/transmission loss is 7%-8% in respect of KVA and 10%-12% in respect of KWH. It is also submitted that the meter in the premises of DVC is installed, more than 9 kilometres away from the load point situated within the factory premises of the petitioner. Even in spite of writing several letters to the concerned authorities of the respondent- D.V.C., the respondent continued to raise current monthly bills without giving any due weightage on account of line loss/transmission loss.

4. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.6023 of 2001 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 29.01.2002 directed the respondent authorities to take final decision in the matter of grant of transmission loss to the petitioner within 30 days after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents were further directed to revise all the bills and the excess amount paid by the petitioner against the bills, were directed to be refunded or adjusted in future. As the respondents did not dispose of the matter in spite of specific time as fixed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said W.P.(C) No.6023 of 2001 and sat over the matter for over one year and deliberately not taking the decision in the matter and were continuing raising bills for the month of January, 2002