Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 9861
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 140 of 2020 M/s BMC Metal Cast Ltd, a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its factory at 2 nd Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur through one of its Executive Director, Shri Deepak Dokania, Son of Sri Mahabir Ram, aged about 55 years, Resident of Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, Distt. East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand … … Petitioner/ Appellant Versus
1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its Chairman having its office at Engineers Bhawan, H.E.C, Dhurwa, Town Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi
2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited, office at Bistupur, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Dist.
East Singhbhum
3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Saraikella- Kharsawan
4. Electrical Executive Engineer (C&R), Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Saraikella-Kharswan
5. The Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, through its Secretary, having its office at Kanke Road, P.O. and P.S.- Kanke, Town and District – Ranchi … … Respondents/Respondents With L.P.A. No. 143 of 2020 M/s. B.M.C. Metal Cast Ltd., 2 nd Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, through the Executive Director Sri Deepak Dokania, son of Shree Mahavir Ram, aged about 55 years, Resident of Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District-East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) … … Respondent No. 2/ Appellant Versus
1. JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, Dhurwa, Ranchi, (previously known as Jharkhand State Electricity Board), through Mr. Arun Kumar Srivastava, son of Late R. K. Lal, at present working as Law Officer, resident of – Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S. – Doranda, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Petitioner / Respondent No.1
2. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi … … Respondent No. 1/Respondent No. 2
3. The Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, through its Secretary, presently having its office at Kanke Road, P.O. and P.S. – Kanke, Town and District – Ranchi, earlier office at Sainik Market, M.G. Road, P.O. & P.S. Hindpiri, Dist.- Ranchi … … RespondentNo.3/ Respondent No.3 --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate : Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate --- C.A.V. On 04 th October 2023 Pronounced on 13 th October 2023
J U D G M E N T
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 03 rd February 2020 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1284 of 2014 and W.P. (C) No. 5057 of 2015. L.P.A. No. 140 of 2020 arises from W.P. (C) No. 5057 of 2015 and L.P.A. No. 143 of 2020 arises from W.P. (C) No. 1284 of 2014.
2. W.P. (C) No. 1284 of 2014 was filed by the then Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited and Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited) [hereinafter referred to as “Nigam”] and W.P. (C) No. 5057 of 2015 was filed by the Appellant. By the common impugned judgment, W.P. (C) No. 1284 of 2014 has been allowed and W.P. (C) No. 5057 of 2015 has been dismissed.
3. The appellant was having high tension electricity connection for a contract demand of 1500 KVA under 33 KV supply bearing consumer number HJAP-71. The dispute involved in both cases relates to ‘voltage rebate’ . The total period involved in these cases is from May 2010 to July 2015. This period is governed by different tariffs as notified from time to time. W.P.(C) No.1284 of 2014 is covered by tariff 2010-11 (May 2010 to July 2011) and W.P.(C) No.5057 of 2015 is covered by tariff 2011-12 and 2012-13(August 2011 to July 2015).
W.P.(C) No. 1284 of 2014
4. W.P.(C) No.1284 of 2014 was filed on behalf of Nigam for quashing the order dated 09 th October 2013 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand in Appeal No. EOJ/03/2013 and also for quashing the order dated 25 th May 2013 passed by Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Nivaran Forum, Chaibasa at Jamshedpur in Case No.
33/2011/06/2012. By the orders impugned in the writ petition, the appellant was held entitled to ‘voltage rebate’ for the period May 2010 to July 2011 and Nigam was directed to revise the bills.
5. The appellant had initially filed a consumer case before the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forum’). The case was transferred to Forum at Chaibasa and numbered as Case No.33 of 2011. In the consumer case, the appellant had prayed for a direction upon Nigam to allow ‘voltage rebate’ as per the tariff 2010-11 applicable for the period from May 2010 to July 2011. On notice, Nigam appeared before the Forum. The stand taken by Nigam was that ‘voltage rebate’ was being allowed to the appellant in the light of letter dated 26 th June 2004 with respect to the tariff order 2003-04 pursuant to which even the consumers in arrears were entitled for ‘voltage rebate’ . However, after coming into force of tariff order 2010-11 issued by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Regulatory Commission’) both ‘voltage rebate’ and ‘load factor rebate’ are not available to the consumers who are in arrears. The consumer case was decided in favour of the appellant; the appeal filed by Nigam before the Electricity Ombudsman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ombudsman’) was also dismissed. It was the case of Nigam before the writ Court in W.P.(C)
No.1284 of 2014 that the Forum as well as the Ombudsman had erroneously held that the appellant was entitled to get ‘voltage rebate’ under the tariff 2010-11 by erroneously interpreting the tariff order 2010- 11 and by holding that the appellant was not in arrears on the basis of the judgment passed by the appellate authority in the case of another consumer namely M/s Usha Martin being Case No. 20 of 2006 .
6. It was the case of Nigam that the amount of Rs. 9,91,621/- on account of ‘fuel surcharge’ and Rs.2,42,136/- on account of ‘annual minimum guarantee charges’ (AMG Charges) for the period 2000-01 along with ‘delayed payment surcharge’ (DPS) of Rs. 62,995/- was ‘ kept in abeyance’ in the bill for the month of January 2003 related to the appellant, ‘voltage rebate’ was not to be allowed to the peti
