O R D E R

7th September 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is a sequel to L.P.A. No. 217 of

2013.

2. Tata Yodogawa Limited is aggrieved of dismissal of W.P (C)

No.3801 of 2013.

3. W.P (C) No. 3801 of 2013 was filed with the following prayers:

“a). For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Bill dated 10.06.2013 which is for a sum of Rs.2,72,03,25,445.72, which is allegedly a Bill which has been communicated vide letter no. 1583 dated 10.06.2013 by the Electrical Superintending Engineer ( Respondent no. 3), being a rectified bill as a result of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 02.05.2013 in CWJC No. 852 of 2000 ( R) and which also includes an amount of fuel surcharge for the period July, 1993 to August 1999 for a sum of Rs.5,92,84,086.72, though the said issue of fuel surcharge was not a subject matter of dispute in CWJC No. 852 of 2000 (R).

b) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s), order(s) or Direction (s) or writ for a declaration that 1999 Induction Furnace Tariff is applicable from 06.04.2000 from the date on which it was published in the Gazette and continued till 6th May, 2001 in as much as in terms of letter dated 07.05.2001, the said tariff was extended by the Bihar State Electricity Board only to areas falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar and not the areas falling within the State of Jharkhand since the said extension of the tariff was never adopted by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board nor it was published in the official gazette of the State of Jharkhand and consequently from 07.05.2001 up till 31.12.2003 the erstwhile 1999 tariff of the Bihar State Electricity Board would be applicable.

c) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s), order(s) or direction (s) for a direction upon the respondents to revise the impugned Bills in the manner as stated herein below and which is supported by the various Circulars, Tariffs as well as the judgments of this Hon'ble Court:

i) The Bill on the basis of 1999 tariff schedule should be raised w.e.f. 06.04.2000 till 31.03.2002;

ii) The bill for the month of April, 2000 has to be levied proportionately i.e. from 01.04.2000 till 05.04.2000, which should be levied on the 1993 tariff and subsequently on the basis of Induction Furnace Tariff.

iii) Since the respondents have increased the contract demand from 10500 KVA to 19233 KVA w.e.f.16.04.2000 and consequently on account of increase in tariff, a new agreement has to be signed and, therefore, in terms of Clause 4(c) of the Agreement for the first 12 months, the demand charge has to be levied on the basis of what is recorded in the maximum demand indicated.

iv) From January, 2004, the contract demand has to be treated as 10,500 KVA and 12,500 KVA from March, 2005 whereas, the respondents have treated contract demand of the petitioner to be

19,233 KVA on the basis of 1999 Induction Furnace Tariff, which was notified on 06.04.2000 in the Official Gazette.

v) That from January, 2004 till April, 2010, whatever KVA, which has been recorded, has to be charged in terms of the Tariff order of 2004 and this issue is also fortified by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.

vi) That from May, 2010, a contract demand has been treated to be 14,524 KVA, which is without any basis and the bills should have been on the basis of 12,500 KVA.

vii) No delayed payment surcharge should have been levied because when the Bills itself are wrong and needs to be rectified/revised, there is no question of levying of delayed payment surcharge. The amount paid earlier by way of interim order passed in CWJC No. 852 of 2000 (R) has to be adjusted from the total demand.

d) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 22.06.2013, received by the petitioner on 24.06.2013, by which the Electrical Superintending Engineer has summarily dismissed the objections of the