In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(C) No.2239 of 2011
M/s. Bhawani Ferrous Private Limited................ Petitioner
VERSUS
Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr. M. S .Mittal, Sr. Advocate
For the Board : Mr. Rajesh Shankar, Advocate
Reserved on 13.9.2011 Delivered on 27.9.2011
9/ 27.9.11
. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the provision
of the Companies Act set up its unit in the year 2002. It got electric
connection from the Jharkhand State Electricity Board for a contract
demand of 100 KVA and an agreement to that effect was executed
on 20.11.2002 wherein purpose for supply was mentioned as ‘wire
drawing’.
On 2.6.2003 the contract demand of the company was
enhanced to 300 KVA and hence, agreement was arrived at
wherein the purpose was mentioned as “Wire Drawing” and Re-
Rolling Mill. The Tariff Schedule which was made applicable was
mentioned as HTS-I and accordingly, bills were being raised which
were raised till December, 2003. From January bills were being
raised under 2004 Tariff Schedule and the payments were made.
In February, the contract demand was enhanced from 400
KVA to 2800 KVA and subsequently upto 3400 KVA. Accordingly
agreement was executed wherein purpose was shown as ‘Re-
rolling and Melting of Iron’. The tariff schedule which was
applicable was mentioned as HTSS (Induction Furness).
Accordingly, bill on being raised under 2004 tariff were being paid.
Again in June, 2010 when the contract demand of the
company was enhanced to 3800 KVA, an agreement was executed
wherein tariff schedule applicable was mentioned as HTSS
(Induction Furnace). Accordingly, bills were being raised under
2010 tariff. In the month of October, 2010, the petitioner was served
with a notice issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer
intimating therein that the petitioner’s unit never falls within HTSS
tariff category rather falls within the ambit of HTS category. In
January it was informed that the company needs to take two
separate connection one under HTS-II tariff category and other
under HTSS tariff category, failing which the Board will be charging
bills under HTS-II tariff category which according to the petitioner
was quite illegal. It is also the case that on getting the said notice,
the petitioner was contemplating to agitate the issue but in the
meantime, the petitioner was served with bill for the month of
March, 2011 which had been raised under HTS tariff category and
that necessitated filing of this writ application for quashing of the
energy bill of March, 2011 and also for quashing the letter dated
9.3.2011 issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric
Supply Circle, Deoghar whereby directions were issued to the
petitioner to install a separate meter for its Re-rolling Mill in spite of
the fact that point of supply is single which as per agreement is for
Re-rolling and Melting of Steel.
Mr.Mitttal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that since the inception of the factory, the
petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Board on four
different points of time but at all occasions, the point of supply has
been mentioned as single and therefore, any directive issued by the
authority of the Board to have separate connection for both the
units would be contrary to the agreement and also in derogation of
clause 9.3 of the Supply Code Regulation and that agreement
entered into between the parties does postulate of charging the
energy bill as HTSS tariff and therefore, officer of the Board does
not have any authority to charge electric bill unilaterally under HTS
tariff.
It was also contended that under the agreement, the
petitioner was always put under the category of HTSS, tariff which
always used to be higher than tariff of HTS and the petitioner
happily accepted that status and went on making payment of the
electric energy but under the new tariff of 2010, when tariff of HTSS
has been lowered down, the petitioner is being sought to be put in
HTS category and this action of the respondent-Board is quite
arbitrary. Therefore, bill raised for the month of March, 2011 on the
basis of HTS tariff is quite illegal and is fit to be set aside.
Mr. Rajesh Shankar, leaned counsel appearing for the Board
submitted that the petitioner had executed an agreement on June,
2010 for enhancement of load from 3400 to 3800 KVA for Re-
Rolling and Melting of Iron on HTSS induction. In course of time,
Jharkhand State Regulatory Commission came with tariff 2010-11
whereby HTSS (33 KVA) category is applicable for induction
furnace/arc furnace of contract demand of 300 KVA or more
whereas for other consumption like Rolling/Re-Rolling it was put
under HTS category.
It was further pointed out that since clubbing of both the tariff
is not permissible, the petitioner was requested to apply for new
connection for their HTSS category but the petitioner did not take
any initiative and therefore, there was no option left with the
authority but to issue bill for March, 2011 applying tariff of HTS
category and thus, the application is devoid of any merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
Admittedly, the petitioner has been running factory since,
2002 and since then, the petitioner had entered into an agreement
with the Electricity Board at different occasion. Lastly, the petitioner
entered into an agreement for a contract demand of 3800 KVA in
June, 2010 wherein point of supply was shown as single for Re-
Rolling and Melting of Steel Iron. As per the agreement, tariff which
was to be applied was HTSS (induction furnace) in terms of clause
5.25 category of 2004 tariff which reads as follows:
5.25 category – 8:HT Special Service (HTSS) (HT
consumer with induction furnace)” This tariff schedule shall apply to all consumers who
have a contracted demand of 300 KVA and more for
induction furnace, however, it will not apply to casting
units having induction furnace of melting capacity of
500 Kg. or below”.
Under 2010 tariff, the situation got changed whereby High
Tension Voltage Supply Service has been put in HTS category
whose applicability has been defined hereunder:
“The schedule shall apply for all consumers including
induction/arc furnaces having contract demand above
100 KVA”.
“This tariff schedule shall also apply to all consumers
who have a contract demand of 300 KVA and more
for induction/arc furnace under the HTSS tariff
earlier”.
Thus, there has been clear cut departure from earlier tariff.
Under the new tariff unit having induction/ arc furnace, which had
been put in HTSS tariff under the 2004 tariff, has now been put
under HTS tariff which would be quite enforceable in view of one of
the clause of the agreement entered into in between the Board and
the petitioner which reads as follows:
” The Board shall be at liberty at any time to alter the
demand charges, energy charges including fuel
surcharge and minimum guarantee charges as set
out in the schedule appended hereto and this
schedule shall be deemed as having been
automatically revised with effect from the date the
Board enforces the new tariff rate for the consumer.”
Thus, I do not find any substance in the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner that the Board does not have any authority
to put the petitioner to be charged under HTS tariff instead of HTSS
tariff.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and
hence, this application stands dismissed.
( R. R. Prasad, J.)
ND/