1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3304 of 2008 With W.P. (C) No. 4285 of 2008 With W.P. (C) No. 4286 of 2008 With W.P. (C) No. 4287 of 2008 With W.P. (C) No. 2401 of 2010 With W.P. (C) No. 2433 of 2010 With W.P. (C) No. 1687 of 2007 1.Jharkhand State Electricity Board through its Chairman, having the officer at Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi .... Petitioner (In 3304/2008,4285/2008,4286/2008,4287/2008, 1687/2007) 2.The Jharkhand State Electricity Board through its Senior Law Officer, Parmeshwar Prasad, having its office at Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Campus, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist Ranchi ...Petitioner (In 2401/2010, 2433/2010,) Versus 1.M/s Lord Balajee Manufacturing Steel Pvt. Ltd. having its work at Humid, Chandil, P.O. and P.S. Chandil, Dist. East Singhbhum through its one of the Directors Pawan Poddar, S/o Late R.N. Poddar, r/o Circuit House Area, Road No. 13, P.O. and P.S. Sonari Jamshedpur ... Respondent (In 3304/2008) 2. M/s Naba Metal Ltd. having its work at Balijhore, Noamundi, P.O. and P.S. Noamundi, Dist. West Singhbhum, through its authorized signatory Vijay Bhardwaj, S/o T. Bhardwaj, r/o Balijhore, Noamundi P.O. and P.S. Noamundi, Dist. West Singhbhum ... .... ... .... .... Respondent (In 4285/2008) 3.M/s Ridhi Sidhi Iron (P) Ltd. Suksari, Taldanga, Nehru Road, Chirkunda, through one of its Directors Birendra Kumar Rai, S/o Sri P. Rai, r/o Taldanga, Nehru Road, Chirkunda, P.O. and P.S. Chirkunda, Dist. Dhanbad ...Respondent (In 4286/2008) 4.M/s Divine Alloys & Power Company Ltd. having its works at Raidih Palgam, Chandil, Dist. Saraikela Kharsawan through its one of the Directors Sri Rajesh Pandey, S/o Sri Ramdeo Pandey, r/o Tajmahal, Club Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Chutia, Dist. Ranchi ... ... ... ... ... Respondent (In 4287/2008) 5.M/s Rampant Steel Private Ltd. through one of its Directors Krishnand Singh, S/o Late Ram Lal Singh having its place of working at Chota Lakha (Manikhui) P.O. Bhdhudih, Dist Saraikela Kharsawan ... ... ... Respondent (In 2401/2010) 6.M/s Jadopur Steel Private Ltd. having its place of working at Kanderbera, P.O. and P.S. Chandil , Dist. Saraikela Kharsawan ... ... .... Respondent (In 2433/2010) 7.M/s T & T Metals Pvt. Ltd. Having place of working at Plot No. 126/122/129, Tupudana Industrial Area, Hatia, Ranchi through its one of the Director, Mr. Prakash Tekriwal, son of Sri Atma Ram Agarwal, resident of Sukla Colony, Hinoo, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi ... ..Respondent (In 1687/2007) 2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ............ For the Petitioners : M/s Rahul Kumar (S.C.), Prabhat Singh(A.S.C.) (In 3304/2008) M/s P.K. Deomani (S.C.), Ravi Kr. Singh (A.S.C.)(In 4285/2008,4286/2008, 4287/2008, 2401/2010, 2433/2010, 1687/2007) For the Respondents : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Shilpi John, (In 3304/2008) M/s Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Sweta Rani (In 4285/2008,4286/2008, 4287/2008,2401/2010/2433/2010,1687/2007) 5/19.02.2015 In these writ applications, common question of law raised as to whether Jharkhand State Electricity Board entitled to raise bills on the basis of 100% contract demand after enforcement of the tariff order 2003-04 w.e.f. 01.01.2004 Accordingly, all the cases heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. It appears that respondents in all cases are owners of induction furnace and bills raised against them on different dates by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (J.S.E.B.) on the basis of 100 % contract demand (prescribed in the tariff of 1999) even after coming into force of tariff order 2003-04.
3. It is relevant to mention that tariff order 2003-04 issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (J.S.E.R.C.) on 27.12.2003 and made effective from 01.01.2004. It appears that in the tariff of 2003-04, consumers belonging to H.T.S.S. category are required to pay actual demand charge @ Rs. 300 per K.V.A.. Since the impugned bills raised on the basis of 1999 tariff order therefore, respondents filed application before the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Nivaran Forum (hereinafter referred as 'Forum') challenging the bills.
4. It appears that Forum after considering the contention of both the parties allowed the application of the consumers/respondents and hold that w.e.f 01.01.2004 Jharkhand State Electricity Board has no power to raise bills on the basis of 100% contract demand as prescribed in 1999 tariff order. Accordingly Forum directed J.S.E.B. for issuance of monthly energy bills in respect of respondents on the basis 3 of actual K.V.A. recorded in the meter in each month. The Forum further directed the Board to adjust the excess money, realized from the respondents, in subsequent bills with interest as per Electricity supply code regulation 2005(hereinafter referred as supply code).
5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders of the Forum, J.S.E.B. filed different appeals before the Electricity Ombudsman Jharkhand. Details of the case Nos. and dates of their disposal respectively are as follows : Case No. EOJ/04/2008 disposed of on 09.05.2008 Case No. EOJ/09/2008 disposed of on 03.06.2008 Case No. EOJ/10/2008 disposed of on 05.06.2008 Case No. EOJ/11/2008 disposed of on 20.06.2008 Case No. EOJ/25/2000 disposed of on 21.01.2009 Case No. EOJ/27/2008 disposed of on 24.01.2009 Case No. EOJ/01/2006 disposed of on 15.02.2007 6. By the aforesaid orders, learned Ombudsman affirmed the orders of the Forum and dismissed the appeals. Against the orders of Forum and learned Ombudsman, these writ applications filed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.
7. Learned counsels for the petitioners submits that according to Clause 1.4 of the terms and conditions of tariff order 2003-04 all other terms and conditions in respect of meter rent, supply at lower voltage capacitor charge, Circuit-Breaker Charge, Electricity duty, rebate, security deposit, surcharge for exceeding contract demand etc. shall remain the same as existing in the State. It is submitted that prior to 01.01.2004, tariff order issued by Bihar State Electricity Board in the year 1999 was applicable, so far it relates to consumers owning induction furnace. Thus, it is submitted by learned counsels for the petitioners that as per aforesaid tariff, petitioner entitled to raise bills to the consumers owning induction furnace on the basis of 1999 tariff, which prescribed that consumers are liable to pay demand charge on the basis of 100% contract demand. Accordingly, it is submitted that orders of Forum and learned Ombudsman are not sustainable.
8. On the other hand learned counsels for the respondents, appearing in different writ petitions, have submitted that aforesaid contention of the Board has been overruled by a Bench of this Court in Jharkhand State Electricity Board versus M/s Kumardhubi Steels 4 Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (3) JLJR620 wherein it was held that from 01.01.2004 tariff order issued in the year 1999 by the Bihar State Electricity Board had no application. It is submitted that aforesaid judgment of this Court attains finality after disposal of Special Leave to Appeal No. 20104/2009. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Others versus Laxmi Business and Cement Company Private Ltd. and Another reported in 2014 (5) S.C.C. 236 held that w.e.f 01.01.2004 the tariff order issued by Bihar State Electricity Board in the year 1999 has no application in the State of Jharkhand. It is further submitted that against the aforesaid judgment, petitioners filed a review application vide Review Petition (C) No. 139 of 2015, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05th of February 2015. It is accordingly submitted that now it is not open for the petitioners to raise aforesaid point of law, as the same has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the cases and various judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only point of law raised in these cases as to whether Jharkhand State Electricity Board has power to raise bills, in case of respondents, on the basis of 1999 tariff order issued by B.S.E.B.? The above point of law considered by the different Benches of this High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For the first time the matter was considered by a Bench of this Court in Jharkhand State Electricity Board versus M/s Kumardhubi Steels Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). In that case this Court, vide order dated 17.04.2009, has held that tariffs of 1999 and 2001 issued by Bihar State Electricity Board have no application in the State of Jharkhand w.e.f 01.01.2004. This order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as Special Leave to Appeal filed against it has been dismissed. Again this Court in M/s Bimaldeep Steel Pvt. Ltd. versus Jharkhand State Electricity Board (disposed of on 12.02.2015) has reiterated the same proposition of law. It further appears that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others versus Laxmi Business and Cement Company Private Ltd. and Another (Supra) has held that the tariff order issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board has no application in the State of Jharkhand w.e.f 01.01.2004. As stated above, the review petition filed by the Jharkhand State 5 Electricity Board against the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Business and Cement Company Private Ltd. has been dismissed on 5th of February 2015. Thus, w.e.f. 01.01.2004 tariff order issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board in the year 1999 in relation to induction furnace consumers, has no application in the State of Jharkhand. Hence the Jharkhand State Electricity Board is not entitled to raise bills against the consumers owning induction furnace on the basis of 100% contract demand as prescribed in the tariff order 1999.
10. From perusal of the impugned orders I find that Forum as well as learned Ombudsman had followed the same principle and has held that w.e.f 01.01.2004 petitioners-Jharkhand State Electricity Board is not entitled to raise bills on the basis of 1999 tariff. In that view of the matter I find no illegalities in the impugned orders.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in these writ applications. Accordingly, all the writ applications are dismissed.
12. However, I order that parties shall bear their own costs. (Prashant Kumar, J.) Binit