Jharkhand High Court
J.S.E.B. Th.Itd Chairman & Ors vs Ranchi Club Ltd. on 3 August, 2012
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Chief Justice, Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
-----
L.P.A. No. 435 of 2003
-----
Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors. . ...Appellant.
Versus
Ranchi Club Limited ... .... .... Respondent.
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : M/s. Anil Choudhary & Piyush Poddar,
Advocates.
---
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
-----
Order No. 16 Dated : 3rd August, 2012
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, successor of the
Bihar State Electricity Board has challenged the judgment
dated 11.03.2003 passed in CWJC NO.2987/2000(R).
The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner-respondent
has three separate electrical connection of 10 K.W. each in its
premises for the last 30 to 40 years. In presence of the Club
office bearers, an inspection of the premises was made and the
inspection report was prepared. The total connected load was
found to be 131.644 K.W. and in the remark column, it was
recorded that as per the Club representative, A.C. was not in
working condition and compressors were found removed during
inspection but all motors were found connected.
Be that as it may, a bill was raised against the writ
petitioner which was challenged on various grounds including
on the ground that the bill has been raised by wrong
calculation made under Clause 16.9.A(iv) of the tariff
prescribed for charging of the electricity consumption. In such
situation, the learned Single Judge, after considering Clause
16.9.A.(iv) and after considering the consumer category i.e. CS-
III observed that in the assessment for charge as per formula
which is Rs. CxM(LD-LS)x3 and what is 'M' is mentioned in
Clause 16.9.A.(iv) observed that value of 'M' cannot be a fixed
value but it is a variable value. The learned Single Judge for
holding so considered the calculation given by the petitioner in
the writ petition itself.
Learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity
Board submitted that when Clause 16.9.A.(iv) is unambiguously
clear and what is the value of 'M' has been mentioned in the
Clause itself then it cannot be interpreted in the manner which
is not in consonance with the definition of M given in the above
statutory provision on the basis of some assumption.
Learned counsel for the appellant,therefore,
submitted that the judgment decided only one question in
favour of the petitioner and i.e. of interpretation of value of 'M'
deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent tried to justify
the calculation on the basis of the reasons given by the learned
Single Judge that if the value of 'M' will not be variable then it
will result into charging of the consumption on the basis of a
statistical method inspite of different consumption.
Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted
that the learned Single Judge committed error of law and
wrongly held that the appellant-electricity Board can charge
three times of fuel surcharge in such matter. According to the
learned counsel for the respondent the decision of the learned
Single Judge is just contrary to the decision of the Supreme
Court given in the judgment delivered in the case of J.M.D.
Alloys Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, reported in
2003(2) JCR 210(SC) wherein this very condition was under
consideration and the Supreme Court held that thrice of the
fuel surcharge cannot be charged.
We have considered the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given by the
learned Single Judge and the judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the respondent.
The 16.9.A.(iv) is as under :-
" When connected load is more than the
sanctioned load in case of all categories L.T.
Connection except domestic service.
Assessment charge:- Rs. CxM(LD-
LS) x3
Where, M= Minimum consumption
guarantee charge per BHP per month as
applicable in the tariff schedule.
L.D= is the load detected in BHP at
the time of inspection.
L.S.= is the load sanctioned to the
consumer in BHP.
C= This factor be taken equivalent
to six months or no of months or part thereof
elapsed from the date of
connection/installation whichever is less."
It is clear from the said Clause that what shall be the
value of 'M' has been made very specifically clear in the same
provision and, therefore, no other interpretation is possible by
the Court then as given in the statutory condition. Therefore,
value of 'M' will only be - "minimum consumption guarantee
charge per BHP per month as applicable in the tariff schedule".
The value of 'M' is, therefore and cannot be a variable factor.
In view of the above reasons, the judgment of the
learned Single Judge deciding this issue is reversed and it is
held that the value of 'M' will be only as given under Clause
16.9.A.(iv).
So far as the fuel surcharge is concerned they
cannot be levied thrice in view of the judgment of the Supreme
Court delivered in the case of J.M.D. Alloys Ltd(Supra). The
Supreme Court in last paragraph 17 clearly held that Clause
16.10.3is a separate Clause which deals with fuel surcharge and it nowhere lays down that this additional surcharge will also be levied at thrice the rate per unit of the tariff. The two Clauses namely, 16.9 and 16.10.3 have to be read separately and therefore, having no specific provision for assessing the fuel charge at thrice the rate per unit which is not possible to hold that in such a case fuel surcharge can also be charged at thrice the rate per unit.
In view of the above reasons, the L.P.A is allowed to the extent mentioned above with respect to the interpretation of value of 'M' but, relief is also granted in favour of the respondent and it is held that the appellant-Board cannot charge the amount thrice the fuel surcharge amount. Therefore, the setting aside of the bill shall remain as it is and the appellant-Board may re-calculate the amount of charge and the appellant-Board will calculate the charges in accordance with the findings given above and may issue a bill to the writ petitioner-respondent which is to be paid by the writ petitioner. If the petitioner has already paid any bill amount and it is in excess to fresh demand that may be adjusted against the future bill.
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.) ( Jaya Roy, J.) Biswas/SI