Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand State Electricity Board vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5939 of 2004
Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Engineering Building, HEC Township,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, through its Electrical Executive Engineer (Comm. &
Rev.), Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi, Kusai Colony, PO & PS-Doranda,
District-Ranchi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Steel Authority of India Ltd., a Company registered under the
Companies Act, having its registered office at Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi, through one of its units namely Research & Development
Centre for Iron and Steel, PO & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s. Indrajit Sinha,
Ankit Vishal, Advocate
--------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V On 20/01/2025 Pronounced on 14/02/2025
Per, Deepak Roshan, J.
1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner for the following relief:
"(i) For quashing the order dated 04.06.2004 passed by the learned
"Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum" (C.G.R.F in short) Ranchi in
case no. 46/2003 presented by the respondent no.2, whereby and
whereunder the said Learned Forum has been pleased to allow the prayer
of the respondent no.2 setting aside the bills for the period March 1998 to
January 1999.
(ii) For holding the bills/demand dated 28.2.2000 and 19.2.2000 raised
upon the respondent no.2 as proper and also for a direction upon the
respondent no.2 to pay the same alongwith statutory surcharges.
And/Or
(iii) For passing such other or further order/orders as Your Lordships may
deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice."
2. The brief fact of the case is that the 2nd respondent has availed
power supply from the then B.S.E.B at 33,000 Volts vide EHT Agreement
effective from 29.03.1984 for a contract demand of 1675 KVA. From
01.07.1993, the tariff of the Board came into effect and as per clause
16.4.1, the capacity of the transformer of H.T and E.H.T consumer were
restricted up to 150% of the contract demand.
A notice vide letter dated 15.03.1997 was issued to the 2nd
respondent and directed it to either increase the contract demand or install
the transformer below 2513 KVA within six months.
3. The 2nd respondent did not choose to reduce the capacity of the
transformer and as such the installation of 2nd respondent was inspected on
04.02.1998 by a team of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter
to be referred as petitioner-Board) and they found that the installed
capacity of the transformer is 4460 KVA and all connected with the power
supply. The petitioner-Board thereafter treated the contract demand of the
2nd respondent as 2974 KVA and served a bill dated 02.12.1998 for an
amount of Rs.55,39,989.00 containing an amount of Rs.83,52,310.00 kept
in abeyance on account of fuel surcharge balance and a notice dated
24.12.1998 was served to the 2nd respondent.
4. Thereafter, by letter dated 23.03.1999, the 2nd respondent
informed to the petitioner that it has disconnected the power supply from
the stand-by transformer since end of January 1999 and thereafter the 2nd
respondent acted upon the actual load claimed by it. However, vide
supplementary bill dated 28.02.2000 the 2nd respondent was served with a
supplementary bill for fuel surcharge for an amount of Rs.1,62,08,251.00.
Vide letter dated 22.03.2000 the authorities of the petitioner again wrote to
the 2nd respondent requesting for payment of outstanding bills till January
1999.
5. Being aggrieved, the 2nd respondent filed a writ petition being
C.W.J.C No. 1191 of 2000 (R) assailing the bill prior to January 1999 but
the same was dismissed by an order dated 22.02.2001 by holding that the
2nd respondent is liable to pay the demand raised by the petitioner.
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent was served a bill of Rs.79,93,572.00 on
account of energy charges and D.P.S up to the month of January 1999.
Against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the
2nd respondent filed an appeal being L.P.A No. 122 of 2001 and by order
dated 26.11.2002, the parties were referred for their grievance to the
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd
respondent filed an application which was registered as Case No. 46 of
2003 and the same was allowed on 04.06.2004 by holding that it was
provided in the tariff that if the consumer is found to have installed
transformer for more than 150% of the contract demand, their supply
should be disconnected which the petitioner-Board has not followed and
had taken a different action.
6. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum, learned counsel for the petitioner draws
attention of this Court towards clause 4(a) of the Agreement and submits
that as per clause 4(a) of the Agreement it is specifically stipulated as
under:
"4 (a) Subject to the minimum contract demand applicable for the
category of supply in which the consumer falls as per Board's tariff, the
consumer shall pay to the Board for the energy so supplied and registered
or taken to have been supplied as aforesaid at the appropriate rates
applicable to the consumer according to the tariffs framed by the Board
and in force from time to time the presently enforced tariffs being given I
the schedule to this agreement for easy reference. Such reference is subject
to provisions of clause 14 appearing hereinafter."
7. Referring to the aforesaid clause and also clause 16.4 which
deals with the transformer capacity and clause 16.5 which deals with
surcharge for exceeding the contract demand of the Gazette Notification,
learned counsel tries to support the impugned bill (Annexure-5 to the writ
petition) however, from perusal of the bill dated 02.12.1998 it appears that
it is not for the surcharge but it is the bill on account of energy charges and
D.P.S up to the month of January 1999, though the capacity of the
transformer of H.T and E.H.T consumer were restricted up to 150% of the
contract demand. To appreciate the contention of the petitioner with regard
to question of payment of the amount raised in the bill it is necessary to
peruse the tariff notification dated 23.06.1993. For brevity the same is
quoted below:
16.4. TRANSFORMER CAPACITY
"16.4.1. The transformer capacity of H.T. and E.H.T. consumers
shall not be more than 150 per cent of the contract demand.
If any consumer is found violating this provision his service
connection will be disconnected.
16.5. Surcharge for exceeding the contract demand:-
If during any month in a financial year (April to March next year)
the actual maximum demand of a consumer exceeds 110 per cent of the
contract demand then the highest demand so recorded shall be treated as
the contract demand for that financial year and the minimum base charges,
both in respect of maximum demand and energy charge shall be payable
on that basis. ..."
8. From perusal of 16.4.1 of the notification, it is ample clear
that if any consumer is found violating the provision, his service
connection will be disconnected. The contention of the petitioner that
Clause-16.5 with regard to surcharge, will be applicable in the instant case
is misplaced in view of the fact that there is no provision in the tariff that if
the installed capacity of the transformer is found to be above 150% of the
contract, the Board can raise enhance bill based on installed capacity of
the transformer.
Clause-16.4.1 is very specific that in case the consumer is
found to have installed the transformer of capacity exceeding 150% of the
contract demand, their supply should be disconnected which the petitioner-
Board did not adhere to, and has taken a different action by way of raising
a bill on the basis of installed capacity. It is further necessary to observe
that on the one hand, the ground for raising the bill is not the surcharge;
rather the bill was on account of energy charges, and D.P.S up to the
month of January 1999, and on the other hand, the surcharge for exceeding
the contract demand will not be applicable in the instant case.
9. There can be a case that if the transformer capacity of H.T and
E.H.T consumer used is less than 150% of the contract demand then only
surcharge for exceeding the contract demand will be applicable on actual
use. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that in case, the consumer is
found to have installed transformer of capacity exceeding 150% of the
contract demand, their supply should be disconnected which the petitioner
has not done.
10. We therefore do not find any error with the impugned order
dated 04.06.2004 rendered by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.
Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A, if
any, also stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order to cost.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amit
A.F.R
