Jharkhand High Court
Tata Yodogawa Limited vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited ... on 7 September, 2022
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar, Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 405 of 2015
Tata Yodogawa Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of
Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Annex-2, General
Office, Tata Steel Limited, PO & PS-Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001, District-
Singhbhum (East) and Works at-PO and PS-Gamharia, District-Saraikela
Kharsawan, through its Company Secretary Sri Prashant Kumar, s/o Sri
Ishwar Lal, r/o -4, Bagmati Road, PO & PS-Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001,
District-Singhbhum (East) ...... Appellant
Versus
1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (Earlier known as Jharkhand State
Electricity Board) having its office at Engineers Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi through its Chairman, Project Bhawan, HEC, PO & PS-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi
2. The General Manger-cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area Electricity
Board, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (Earlier known as Jharkhand
State Electricity Board), Cooperative Bank Building, Bistupur, Jamshedpur,
PO & PS-Bistupur, District-Singhbhum East
3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Adityapur, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (Earlier known as
Jharkhand State Electricity Board), Jamshedpur, PO & PS-Bistupur,
District-Singhbhum East
4. Chief Engineer (Commercial and Revenue), having its office at Engineers
Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, PO and PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004
5. Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, having its office at
Jawan Bhawan, Main Road, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand
6. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Bhawan, HEC, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
7. Insolvency Resolution Professional of Tata Yodogawa Limited having its
office at XLRI, New Administrative Building, Circuit House Area,
Jamshedpur .... Respondents
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the JUVNL : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
For JSRC : Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate
Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
---------------
2 L.P.A No.405 of 2015
ORDER
th 7 September 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This Letters Patent Appeal is a sequel to L.P.A. No. 217 of 2013.
2. Tata Yodogawa Limited is aggrieved of dismissal of W.P (C) No.3801 of 2013.
3. W.P (C) No. 3801 of 2013 was filed with the following prayers:
"a). For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Bill dated 10.06.2013 which is for a sum of Rs.2,72,03,25,445.72, which is allegedly a Bill which has been communicated vide letter no. 1583 dated 10.06.2013 by the Electrical Superintending Engineer ( Respondent no. 3), being a rectified bill as a result of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 02.05.2013 in CWJC No. 852 of 2000 ( R) and which also includes an amount of fuel surcharge for the period July, 1993 to August 1999 for a sum of Rs.5,92,84,086.72, though the said issue of fuel surcharge was not a subject matter of dispute in CWJC No. 852 of 2000 (R).
b) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s), order(s) or Direction (s) or writ for a declaration that 1999 Induction Furnace Tariff is applicable from 06.04.2000 from the date on which it was published in the Gazette and continued till 6th May, 2001 in as much as in terms of letter dated 07.05.2001, the said tariff was extended by the Bihar State Electricity Board only to areas falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar and not the areas falling within the State of Jharkhand since the said extension of the tariff was never adopted by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board nor it was published in the official gazette of the State of Jharkhand and consequently from 07.05.2001 up till 31.12.2003 the erstwhile 1999 tariff of the Bihar State Electricity Board would be applicable.
c) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s), order(s) or direction (s) for a direction upon the respondents to revise the impugned Bills in the manner as stated herein below and which is supported by the various Circulars, Tariffs as well as the judgments of this Hon'ble Court:
i) The Bill on the basis of 1999 tariff schedule should be raised w.e.f. 06.04.2000 till 31.03.2002;
ii) The bill for the month of April, 2000 has to be levied proportionately i.e. from 01.04.2000 till 05.04.2000, which should be levied on the 1993 tariff and subsequently on the basis of Induction Furnace Tariff.
iii) Since the respondents have increased the contract demand from 10500 KVA to 19233 KVA w.e.f.16.04.2000 and consequently on account of increase in tariff, a new agreement has to be signed and, therefore, in terms of Clause 4(c) of the Agreement for the first 12 months, the demand charge has to be levied on the basis of what is recorded in the maximum demand indicated.
iv) From January, 2004, the contract demand has to be treated as 10,500 KVA and 12,500 KVA from March, 2005 whereas, the respondents have treated contract demand of the petitioner to be 3 L.P.A No.405 of 2015 19,233 KVA on the basis of 1999 Induction Furnace Tariff, which was notified on 06.04.2000 in the Official Gazette.
v) That from January, 2004 till April, 2010, whatever KVA, which has been recorded, has to be charged in terms of the Tariff order of 2004 and this issue is also fortified by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
vi) That from May, 2010, a contract demand has been treated to be 14,524 KVA, which is without any basis and the bills should have been on the basis of 12,500 KVA.
vii) No delayed payment surcharge should have been levied because when the Bills itself are wrong and needs to be rectified/revised, there is no question of levying of delayed payment surcharge. The amount paid earlier by way of interim order passed in CWJC No. 852 of 2000 (R) has to be adjusted from the total demand.
d) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 22.06.2013, received by the petitioner on 24.06.2013, by which the Electrical Superintending Engineer has summarily dismissed the objections of the petitioner without any cogent reasons and false and frivolous assumptions."
4. What at once attracts attention of this Court is the number of prayers made in the writ petition. All the prayers may have some co-relation with each other but definitely not all do have the same cause of action.
5. In our opinion, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground that multiple prayers with separate causes of action were clubbed together in a composite writ petition.
6. It is relevant to mention here that I.A No.6651 of 2022 seeking stay of the further proceeding in the present Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26 th July 2022. We have not been informed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant whether the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. In the order dated 22nd May 2015, the writ Court has observed as under:
"It is a settled principle of law that a quasi judicial authority discharging quasi judicial function in exercise of the statutory power is entitled to discharge his function in light of his own independent perspective. When a statutory authority is vested with the power to determine such questions as in the present writ application, the final determination by the said authority is a necessity at the first instance. The obligation to act fairly on the part of the administrative authorities was evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. This doctrine is complimentary to the principles of natural justice which the quasi judicial authorities are bound to observe. While considering any issue before it which is affecting rights of the parties, the quasi judicial authorities are required to consider each and every aspect of the issue at hand and on consideration is required to pass a 4 L.P.A No.405 of 2015 reasoned order. Such order as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, which I quote "must not be like the inscrutable face of sphinx". Moreover, the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 is a complete code in itself vesting the Certificate Officer with a wide amplitude of power to determine whether the certificate debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount, for which the certificate was signed and may set side, modify or vary the certificate accordingly. The Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act in its inbuilt provision has protected the certificate debtor to the extent of filing objections and the Certificate Officer is duty bound to consider the objections and may take evidence if necessary and thereafter decide on the issue finally. The statute provides for determination of the certificate claim and when different hierarchies providing Forums in relation to passing of an order as also appellate or original order by no stretch of imagination can a higher authority interfere with the independence, which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process. The petitioner having subjected itself to the certificate proceedings by filing objections and taking various steps before the said authority, it is open for the petitioner to raise all its points before the Certificate Officer, who shall consider the same and thereafter pass necessary orders. In view of the alternative Forum, to which the petitioner has subjected itself for adjudication, this Court in writ jurisdiction would be reluctant to consider the issue with respect to the rectified bills, as has been raised by the petitioner in this application. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application, which is, hereby, dismissed."
8. The writ Court referred to the order passed in CWJC No. 852 of 2000(R) and the order passed in Civil Review No. 40 of 2013 to indicate that W.P(C) No. 3801 of 2013 was in the nature of re-agitation of the same issues which were already thrashed out before the writ Court in the previous proceedings.
9. On going through the order dated 22 nd May 2015, we observe that opinion formed by the writ Court is based on well-settled principles in law. The writ Court referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors." (2010) 9 SCC 496 to hold that the writ petition was not maintainable.
10. Before us, no ground has been raised on breach of the rules of natural justice or that the authority which issued electricity bill dated 10 th June 2013 had no jurisdiction. A dispute regarding calculation error in the electricity bill can not be agitated before the writ Court, even where the electricity bill was raised pursuant to a direction issued by the Court. A writ Court is not constituted to assume the function of quasi judicial authority 5 L.P.A No.405 of 2015 exercising powers under the statutes such as the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and, moreover, it is not every error of fact committed by an authority in exercise of his powers against which a certiorari shall lie.
11. In "Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan" AIR 1964 SC 477 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no certiorari shall lie against an error of fact committed by an inferior Tribunal.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in L.P.A No. 405 of 2015 which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 7th September 2022 sudhir/N.A.F.R.