ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2004 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi in Case No. 13 of 2004. He. further prays for a direction upon the respondents not to charge interest by way of D.P.S. on the amount of delayed payment surcharge and the interest charged on the current bills.
3. The petitioner earlier moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3819 of 2001 which was disposed of on 21.8.2001 passing the following orders :-
“The petitioner has challenged the bill relating to fuel surcharge raised vide Annexure-2, dated 20.1.2001. It is alleged that the petitioner wanted to deposit a sum of Rs. 47,142/- by cheque against the bill but the respondents are not accepting the same.
From the letter dated 20.1.2001 (Annexure-2), it appears that the respondents have raised a bill for Rs. 3,49,321/- towards fuel surcharge alongwith current charge. According to petitioner, the respondents should allow him to pay the dues in instalment.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the bill dated 20.1.2001, direct the respondents to accept the cheque for Rs. 47,142/-, if the petitioner deposits.
So far as payment of fuel surcharge in instalment is concerned, the petitioner may approach the concerned General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer and pay the fuel surcharge subject to the decision as may be given in the case of fuel surcharge stated to be pending before this Court.
This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.”
4. The petitioner thereafter entered into an agreement with the Board on 24.10.2001, whereby the petitioner agreed to pay the entire dues of Rs. 3,90,335/- in five instalments each payable on 29.10.2001, 29.11.2001, 29.12.2001, 29.1.2002 and 28.2.2002. It is contended that the actual dues against bills charged was Rs. 2,77,281/- and the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,90,335/- includes the amount of D.P.S. charged till date.
5. Admittedly the petitioner failed to deposit the instalments within time. Consequent thereupon the Board claimed further amount by way of delayed payment surcharge. The petitioner then again moved this Court by filing W.P.C. No. 1481 of 2002 and this Court by order dated 5.2.2004 directed the petitioner to move the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The petitioner moved before the Board and the Board by order dated 11.11.2004 dismissed the petitioner’s applicant. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order read as under :-
“6. Sri Dhananjay Pathak, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent while submitting the copy of the ledger submitted that from perusal of the record it would be evident that no DPS over DPS has been levied. So far levy of interest on the outstanding dues is concerned, Sri Pathak referred to Clause 16.2 of the Tariff is specific in this matter. The Board is entitled to levy DPS over any billed amount that remained unpaid at the rates as stipulated in the Tariff. Sri Pathak submitted that there is neither any provision in the Tariff nor any circular issued by the Board that in case of grant of instalment no DPS will be levied on the balance amount, which is also evident from the provisions made in the agreement. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that from the perusal of the statement made by the petitioner in Para 17, the petitioner made payment of TWO instalments in time and thereafter he had either failed to make the payment in time or has made only part payment which is breach of the agreement and thus the agreement no longer remains in force. Therefore, Sri Pathak submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not maintainable.
7. We have heard both the parties. We have perused the documents submitted by both the parties. We have carefully perused the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWJC No. 4420 of 2000 and WP(C) No. 3819 of 2001. On careful perusal we find that so far the amount of bill raised by the respondent is concerned; to dispute has been raised by the petitioner and as such the same is deemed to be in order and Board is fully empowered to levy DPS over any outstanding energy bill under Clause 16(2) of the Tariff. Fuel Surcharge being a part of the Tariff, any bills raised on account of the Fuel Surcharge, if remains unpaid, the Board have every right to levy DPS over such outstanding dues which is undisputed. In such circumstances we are unable to accept the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel. On the other hand the respondent has very rightly levied the DPS over the outstanding dues.”
6. As noticed above, the actual amount of electricity consumed and pay able by the petitioner is Rs. 2,77,281/- in 2001-02. The amount inclusive of interest comes to Rs. 3,90,355/-. In my opinion, if the petitioner has defaulted in payment of balance instalment amount, then fur ther DPS is to be charged on he actual amount of fuel surcharge payable by the petitioner and on DPS amount. The respondent-Board shall, therefore, raise bills accordingly. In the meantime, if the petitioner has already paid all the five instalments which was fixed as per agree ment in 2001, then no coercive steps shall be taken.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.