M/S Bmc Metal Cast Ltd vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2330 Jhar

                         1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             L.P.A. No.140 of 2020
                       -----

M/s BMC Metal Cast Ltd. ... ... Appellant Versus Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited ... ... Respondent With L.P.A. No.143 of 2020

-----

M/s BMC Metal Cast Ltd. ... ... Appellant Versus Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited ... ... Respondent

-------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate

------

Order No. 15/Dated 17th July, 2023

The subject matter of both the Letters Patent

Appeals is issue of entitlement of voltage rebate in terms of

2011 tariff. The claim of such relief is a note appended to

the aforesaid tariff under the voltage rebate making a

condition that in case of any outstanding dues having with

the consumers and the said dues if stayed by the

appropriate authorities/courts, the benefit of voltage rebate

will be extended in favour of the concerned consumer.

2. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel for the

appellant, has submitted that arrear is there but the same

has been kept in abeyance in pursuance to the order dated

03.08.1999 passed by this Court (Ranchi Bench of Patna

High Court) in C.W.J.C. No.2112 of 1999 (R) (M/s. Samrath

Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. BSEB & Ors.).

2.1 Mr. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant has submitted that by virtue of the order dated

03.08.1999, the arrear since has been kept in abeyance

and, as such, in view of the condition appended to the note

under the condition to extend the benefit of voltage rebate

will be said to be applicable.

2.2 The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,

after taking the same into consideration, has held the

appellant entitled for the voltage rebate. The same has been

affirmed by the learned Ombudsman but the learned Single

Judge has reversed both the orders mainly relying upon the

judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jharkhand

State Electricity Board v. M/s. Usha Martin Ltd. passed in

W.P.(C) No.3005 of 2011 dated 10.07.2015.

2.3 It has been contended that the fact of Usha

Martin's case is quite different to the fact of the present one

since in the Usha Martin's case the tariff of the year 2004

was under consideration wherein there was no condition

under the benefit to be extended for voltage rebate in case

of arrear if stayed by the court of law or the tribunal,

rather, the said condition was in a case of load factor, in

order to demonstrate the same, the reference of 2004 tariff,

as appended as Annexure-1, has been referred.

2.4 It has further been contended that the

judgment of Usha Martin's case will not be applicable also

for another reason, since, in the Usha Martin's case, as

would appear from the factual aspect as referred therein,

that the arrears were there but the court has passed an

order not to take any coercive measure and by taking into

consideration the effect of the implication of the order to the

effect that no coercive step shall be taken, this Court has

passed the order by putting reliance upon the judgment

rendered in the case of Adoni Ginning Factory and Others v.

Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board, Hyderabad

and Ors. [(1979) 4 SCC 560].

2.5 It has been contended that in the Usha

Martin's case since the orders have been passed by holding

therein that in a case of interim order to the effect if passed

not to take any coercive measure, the arrear will be said to

be arrear in the eyes of law and in that view of the matter

the benefit of relaxation, i.e., in the case where the arrears

have been stayed, the benefit of rebate under the load

factor, as the fact of the case of Usha Martin is, has been

held to be applicable but, here in the instant case, there is

an order of keeping the arrears in abeyance and the

moment the arrears have been kept in abeyance, till the

final adjudication of the lis wherein, the order of kept in

abeyance has been passed, the effect/implication of arrears

will have no effect and in that view of the matter, the

appellant is entitled for the rebate under the voltage

category in view of the tariff of the year 2011.

3. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha and Mr. Mrinal Kanti

Roy, appearing for the respondent licensee, have submitted

by justifying the impugned order wherein the rebate has

been given but after the order having been passed by this

Court in W.P.(C) No.3005 of 2011 (Annexure-21), the

demand has been issued for recovery of the rebate so given

by way of voltage rebate.

4. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the

parties, has gathered that the learned counsel for the

respondent is emphasizing by putting reliance upon the

order passed by this Court in the case of Usha Martin

(Annexure-17) while, on the other hand, learned counsel for

the appellant has emphatically argued that there is an

order of keeping the arrears in abeyance passed by Ranchi

Bench of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.2122 of 1999 (R)

in which the interim order was passed on 13.07.1999 to the

effect that the interim order so passed shall also apply to

other consumers who are liable to pay fuel surcharge as per

the revised rate.

5. This Court, on perusal of Annexure-21 which is the

basis of making opposition of the order impugned passed

by the respondent and, as such, the same is being

considered to be the core issue as to what is the nature of

interim order passed basis upon which the impugned order

is being questioned by the appellant.

6. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the nature

of interim order is having bearing in the adjudication of the

lis and for that the nature of interim order dated

13.07.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1509 of 1999 (R) is

required to be considered.

7. Considering the same, the learned counsel for the

respondent is directed to bring on record the interim order

dated 13.07.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1509 of 1999. The

respondent concerned is also directed to apprise this Court

regarding the fate of the aforesaid writ petition being

C.W.J.C. No.1509 of 1999.

8. Let such affidavit be filed on or before the next date

of hearing.

9. List these matters on 31.07.2023.

10. The personal appearance of Mr. Shubhankar Jha,

Chief Engineer, JBVNL and Mr. Deepak Kumar,

Superintending Engineer, JBVNL is dispensed with for the

present.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.) Birendra/