WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 5253 of 2003
An Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Chanduka Hi-tech Steels Pvt. Ltd. ... ... Petitioner
- VERSUS -
1. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board
2. General Manager-cum-C.E., Jamshedpur
3. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur
4. Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue), Electric
Supply Circle, Jamshedpur
5. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Jamshedpur...... ...... Respondents
......
For the petitioner : M/s. M.S. Mittal, N.K.Pasari,
For the State : M/s. V.K.Prasad, Gautam Rakesh
......
PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On 11/08/2009 Delivered on 13/08/2009
Amareshwar Sahay, J. The prayer of the petitioner is
(A) For quashing the bill for the month of June, 2003 and
onwards which have been raised during the period
when the petitioner's meter became defective and has
been raised on the basis of Annual Minimum
Guarantee Charges as the same is in violation of the
various judgments of the Hon'ble High court that in
respect of H.T. consumers the Annual Minimum
Guarantee charges cannot be levied during the period
when the meter is defective, specially in view of the
fact that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from
the payment of AMG charges.
(B) For direction upon the Respondents to raise bills for
June 2003 and onwards on the basis of 3 months
average consumption prior to the June, 2003 when the
meter became defective, i.e. average consumption for
the months of March, April and May 2003.
(C) For direction upon the Respondents to delete the
delayed payment surcharge on the unpaid amount of
bills for the months of June 2003 and onwards since,
when the bills itself are wrong, there is no question of
charging of any delayed payment surcharge on those
amounts.
W.P.(C) No. 5253 of 2003
[2]
2. According to the petitioner, the arrears of bills for the
months of June 2003 to October 2003 issued by the respondents
Electricity Board on the basis of Minimum Guarantee charges are
against the various judgments and orders passed by this Court and
further that raising bills on the basis of Annual Minimum Guarantee
charges to H.T. consumer is against the provisions of 1993 Tariff.
According to the petitioner, when the electric meter goes out of order
or burnt or stopped or having ceased to function for any reason then
the bills has to be raised on the basis of previous three months
average as per Clause 16.8 of 1993 tariff.
3. The petitioner has placed reliance on the several orders
passed by the several Single Benches of this Court and it is submitted
that the orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 5516 of 2001 in the case of
"M/s. R.D. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and
others" is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. The order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5516 of 2001 dated
18/03/2002
has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
4. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents
Electricity Board it has been submitted that the impugned bill was
raised on the basis of the provisions of 16.8 of the Tariff notification
1993. Clause 16.8 of the Tariff notification reads as follows:-
“In the event of meter being out of order, i.e.
burnt/stopped or having ceased to function for any
reason during any months, the consumption for
that month/months shall be assessed on average
consumption of previous 3 months from the date of
meter being out of order or the average
consumption for the corresponding three months of
the previous year or the consumption of the
minimum monthly guarantee which ever is highest.
Such consumption will be treated as actual
consumption for all practical purpose until meter is
W.P.(C) No. 5253 of 2003
[3]replaced/rectified. Fuel surcharge, Power factor
surcharge and Electricity duty shall be levied on
consumption on so calculated.”
5. It is submitted that under Clause 16.8 of the Tariff
notification billing has to be made by three modes of calculation and
in the present case the 3rd mode Minimum Base Charge being the
highest has been taken for the purpose of raising bill under Clause
16.8 of the Tariff and, as such, there is no infirmity in the bills raised
to the petitioner.
6. On perusal of the orders passed by the learned Single
Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5516 of 2001, which has been
annexed in the writ petition, I find that in that case also the points
raised by the petitioners and the objection raised by the respondents
electricity Board were the same as has been raised in the present writ
petition and, therefore, in my view, since on consideration of facts and
relying on the earlier decision of Patna High Court, when a view has
been taken by the learned single Judge of this Court then the same
view has to be taken in the present case also.
7. Accordingly, the impugned Bill as contained in Annexure-
2 for the period June 2003 to October, 2003 is hereby quashed and
the matter is remitted back to the respondent Electricity Board to
issue fresh Bills in respect of the aforesaid period i.e. for the period
June, 2003 to October, 2003 when the meter of the petitioner was
defective on the basis of average consumption of previous three
months or the average consumption for the corresponding three
months of the previous year, whichever is higher.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J)
Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi. Dated 13th August, 2009
Mukund..