ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.S. Mittal learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent/Board.
2. In this writ application the petitioner has mainly prayed for issuance of appropriate directions upon the respondents to delete the entire delayed payment surcharge being levied upon the petitioner every month to the extend of Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 19,000/- on the arrears carried forward every month and also for quashing current monthly bill from the month of January, 2004 to April, 2004 both for its L.T. connection for the factory and C.S. connection for the office on the ground that those bills have been raised on the basis of 1993 tariff instead of 2004 tariff of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and further for a direction upon the respondents to revise entire bills from January, 2004 to April, 2004.
3. Petitioner’s case is that since 1993 respondent/Board issued inflated bills and the same were challenged by filing various writ petitions. In C.W.J.C. No. 2474/93R and in C.W.J.C. No. 2981/1994R order of stay was passed by this Court and ultimately those cases were disposed of by ordering rectification in the bills. Since the direction of the Court was not complied with, the petitioner again filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3280/1995R with a prayer for refund/adjustment of late payment surcharge illegally realized. The said writ petition was also disposed of on 6.11.1996 with a direction to the respondents to calculate late payment surcharge, which were realized by the Board. The said direction was also not complied with by the petitioner and the petitioner again filed C.W.J.C. No. 1247/1995R which was disposed of on 13.1.1995 directing the respondents not to charge fixed charges for the petitioner. It was contended that on 26.8.1999 the electricity line of the petitioner was disconnected on the basis of inspection made by the Board. The petitioner again filed C.W.J.C. No. 2600/1999R, which was disposed of on 10.9.2002 with a direction to the respondent/Board to issue separate bill in respect of lighting load and the connected load. Petitioner’s further case is that not a single direction was complied with by the respondent/Board inspite of several representation made by the petitioner to the respondents to revise the bills. According to the petitioner current charges for the month of May, 2004 is only Rs. 8,040/-, as against that respondents raised bill for Rs. 11,11,641/-. The entire amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- and odd is nothing but is the amount to be set aside against various orders of this Court, inasmuch as this amount is delayed payment surcharge levied upon the petitioner.
4. Respondent/Board filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that the Board has been raising bills since January, 2004 as per the new tariff 2004, Board’s case is that decision was taken to charge arrears or adjust against the charge and in view of the decision excess amount raised in the bills of the petitioner from January, 2004 to April, 2004 has been adjusted from July, 2004 bill. Respondents’ case is that as per the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5512 a detailed chart of calculation alongwith a revised bill was served upon the petitioner. The calculation of demand and the chart was prepared in presence and with the co-operation of the petitioner upon his satisfaction, which will be evident from the letter-dated 17.7.2002 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. It is stated that a bill was again raised pursuant to the direction in L.P.A. No. 523/2002 and was served upon the petitioner alongwith statement of account. Respondents’ further case is that revised bill from July, 1993 to December, 2002 was prepared in presence and with co-operation of the petitioner and a revised bill alongwith statement of Accounts were provided for the period from August, 1999 to February, 2003 in the light of the direction in L.P.A. No. 523 of 2002. The delayed payment surcharge is levied on the unpaid amount and therefore there is no illegality in demanding the delayed payment surcharge.
5. After considering the averments made in the writ application and the counter affidavit and as also the submissions made by the learned counsels it has been noticed that since 1993 whenever the respondents-Board raised bills, the petitioner challenged the same by filing writ petitions and pursuant to interim orders passed by the Court, part of the bill amount was deposited. In this way the petitioner never paid the entire amount covered by the bills on one pretext or the other.
6. From perusal of Annexures-A, B and C to the counter affidavit it is evident that the respondent-Board started giving adjustment from July, 2004 in respect of the excess amount raised for the period January, 2004 to April, 2004.
7. In L.P.A. No. 523/2002 an agreed order was passed by this Court on 13.1.2003. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition which reads as under:
“Heard the learned counsels for the parties. As we are going to pass an agreed order, it is not necessary to go into the details of the rival claims of the parties. From the inspection report dated 26th August, 1999, it is clear that so far as the industrial load is concerned, the same was within the sanctioned load i.e. 77.5 H.P., the sanctioned load being 79 HP. So far as the load on account of lighting and fans in the industries, which comes to 9 KW is = 12 HP., is concerned the same has been separately mentioned in the inspection report. Thus, it is clear that the Board is entitled to charge the respondents on the commercial tariff so far as the load to the extent of 9 KW with respect to lighting and fans is concerned, Mr. Mittal has stated at the Bar that he has made an application on 24.10.2002 with requisite fees for grant of separate commercial connection of 12 kw. for lighting purposes in the industries of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances, with the consent of the parties, we pass the following orders :
(I) The Board shall raise a supplementary/fresh demand on the basis of the fresh calculation based on the commercial tariff with respect to the consumption of energy for the lighting purposes from the date of inspection i.e. 26.8.1999 till a separate meter for commercial purposes is installed at commercial rate.
(II) The Board shall provide a fresh/separate connection on commercial side in the factory premises of the appellant for lighting purposes within six months, if the application made by the respondents is in order, subject to the respondents paying/depositing all the charges.
(III) It is further observed that any payment made in excess of the revised demand shall be subject to adjustment.
With the aforesaid directions/observations, this appeal is disposed of.”
8. In compliance of the aforesaid order the respondent-Board issued a revised bill along with a statement of a account which is evident from Annexures I and J to the counter affidavit. It appears that even thereafter instead of clearing all the electricity dues the petitioner challenged the same on one pretext or other as a result of which the charges have not been paid. In my opinion, therefore, imposition of surcharge on the said dues as D.P.S. cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that because of nonpayment and delayed payment of electricity charges by the consumers, like the petitioner and others, the functioning of the Board is at the stage of collapse.
9. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in raising the bill for the arrear electricity charges and delayed payment surcharge for non-payment or part payment of the electricity dues. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed.