he challenge in these batch of appeals is to the common judgment passed by the writ court in batch of writ petitions by Order dated 08.05.2015; wherein the Writ Petition ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.305 of 2015
……..
M/S. USHA MARTIN LTD. (Earlier known as M/s. Usha
Beltron Ltd.), A Company incorporated under the provisions
of Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 2A,
Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata, P.O. Shakespeare Sarani,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, District Kolkata, West Bengal
through its General Manager (Commercial) Sri N.K. Patodia,
son of Late R.D. Patodia, Resident of Deputy Para, P.O.
GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. ..… 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-cum-Managing Director,
Engineers' Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, having its Head Office at
Bailey Road, Patna, through its Chairman, P.O & P.S.
Fraser (Dak Bunglow).
3.The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna, P.O & P.S. Fraser
(Dak Bunglow).
4. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, Patna. P.O & P.S. Fraser (Dak Buglow).
5. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Ranchi Area
Electricity Supply (Earlier known as South Bihar and
Chhotanagpur Area Electricity Board), Kusai Colony,
Doranda, P.O & P.S:- Doranda Ranchi.
6.General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Urja
Sancharan Nigam Limited (Earlier Jharkhand State
Electricity Board), Transmission Zone JR, Gamharia, P.O. &
P.S. Gamharia, District- Seraikella Kharsawan.
7. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi
Electrical Circle, Kusai Colony, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi.
8. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply
Circle, having its office at Vikash Bhawan, Adityapur, P.O.
and P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikella Kharsawan.
2
9.The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial &
Revenue), Office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer,
Ranchi Electrical Circle, Kusai Colony, Doranda, P.O.&.S:-
Doranda,Ranchi.
10.The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue), Office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer,
Electric Supply Circle, VikashBhawan, Adityapur, P.O. and
P.S. Adityapur, District –SeraikellaKharsawan.
.....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No.410 of 2015
……..
Ramakant Vishwakarma, son of Late Udaybhan
Vishwakarma, Resident of Dimna Chowk P.O. and P.S.
Mango, Town-Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East.
..… Appellant
Versus
1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board(Now Jharkhand State
Vijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.) through its Chairman, Engineering
Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa P.S. Jagannathpur,
District-Ranchi.
2.General Manager Cum Chief Engineer, Singhbhum
Division, Jharkhand State Electricity Board(Now
Jharkhand State VijliVitran Nigam Ltd.), Co-operative
Building, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town-
Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East.
3. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division,
Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, District- Singhbhum
East. ....Respondents
W ith
L.P.A. No. 431 of 2015
……..
M/s. La Opala (R.G.), Ltd., at Madhupur, District- Deoghar,
a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,
having its factories at Madhupur through its Vice President
and Secretary Alok Pandey, Son of Late Bal Krishna
Pandey, Resident of 1/C, Heysham Road, P.O. LalaLaljpat
Rai Sarani Road, P.S. Bhawanipur Town and District-
Kolkata, West Bengal-700020. ..… Appellant
3
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, H.E.C, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi.
2.Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, P.O., G.P.O & P.S. Kotwali, Patna through its
Chairman.
3.The Chief Engineer (Commercial & T.A.), Manager, Bihar
State Electivity Board, Bailey Road, P.O., G.P.O & P.S.
Kotwali, Patna.
4.The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, P.O., G.P.O, & P.S.-Kotwali.
5.The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Chotanagpur
Area, Electricity Board, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, Ranchi.
6.Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply
Circle, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar.
7.Electrical Executive Engineer (C& R), Electrical Circle,
Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District-Deogahr.
.....Respondents
W ith
L.P.A. No. 444 of 2015
……..
URANIUM CORPORATION Of INDIA LIMITED,A
Government Company, registered under section 617 of
the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered and Head
Office at Jadugora Mines, PO and PS Jadugoda District-
East Singhbum, through Its G M (Personnel-IR) Shri C H
Sharma, son of- Late L P Sharma resident of- E- 2 Ucil
Colony PO and PS Jadugora District-Singhbum East.
..… Appellant
Versus
1.JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED (Earlier
Known as JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD),
having its office at Engineers Bhawan, H E C, Dhurwa,
Ranchi through its Chairman, Engineers Bhawan, HEC,
P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan Bailey
Road , P.O. & P.S. Patna, District-Patna Through Its
Chairman.
3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, (Commercial &
Revenue), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Singhbhum
Supply Circle Jamshedpur PO and PS Adityapur,
Jamshedpur, (Singhum East).
4.The Financial Controller (Rev ), Jharkhand State
Electricity Board, Engineers Bhawan H E C P.O and P.S
Dhurwa District- Ranchi .....Respondents
W ith
L.P.A. No. 448 of 2015
……..
URANIUM CORPORATION Of INDIA LIMITED, A
Government Company, registered under section 617 of
the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered and Head
Office at Jadugora Mines, PO and PS Jadugoda District-
East Singhbum, through Its G M (Personnel- IR) Shri C H
Sharma, son of- Late L P Sharma resident of- E- 2 Ucil
Colony P.O and P.S Jadugora District- Singhbum East
..… Appellant
Versus
1.JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED (Earlier
Known as JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD),
having its office at Engineers Bhawan, H E C, Dhurwa,
Ranchi through its Chairman, Engineers Bhawan, HEC,
P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, VidyutBhawan Bailey
Road , P.O. & P.S. Patna, District-Patna Through Its
Chairman.
3.The Chief Engineer, (Commercial and T A) Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, P.O & P.S. Patna, Bihar.
4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Commercial &
Revenue), Bihar State Electricity Board, Singhbhum
Supply Circle, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur.
5.The Financial Controller (Rev), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S. Patna, Bihar.
6.The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Baily
Road, P.O. & P.S. Patna, Bihar. .....Respondents
5
With
L.P.A. No. 449 of 2015
……..
URANIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, A
Government Company, Registered under Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered and Head Office
at Jadugora Mines, P.O. and P.S. Jadugoda, District - East
Singhbhum through its G.M. (Personnel IR) Shri C.H.
Sharma, son of Late L.P. Sharma, Resident of E-2, UCIL
Colony, P.O, and P.S. Jadugora, 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, Engineers Bhawan, H.E.C.,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road,
P.O., P.S. and District-Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, P.O., P.S. and District-
Patna.
4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial &
Revenue), Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, P.O.,
P.S. and District-Patna.
5. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, P.O., P.S. and District-Patna.
.....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 454 of 2 015
……..
URANIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, A
Government Company, Registered under Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered and Head Office
at Jadugora Mines, P.O. and P.S. Jadugoda, District - East
Singhbhum through its G.M. (Personnel IR) Shri C.H.
Sharma, son of Late L.P. Sharma, Resident of E-2, UCIL
Colony, P.O, and P.S. Jadugora, District Singhbhum East.
6
..… 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, Engineers Bhawan, H.E.C.,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi
2. The Chairman, JHVNL, Engineers Bhawan, H.Е.С., Р.О.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.) J.S.E.B,
Engineers Bhawan, HEC, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi
4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial &
Revenue), J.S.E.B, Singhbhum Supply Circle, Jamshedpur,
P.O. and P.S. –Adityapur District-Jamshedpur.
5. The Financial Controller (Rev.), J.S.E.B, Engineers'
Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
.....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 463 of 2015
……..
URANIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, A
Government Company, Registered under Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered and Head Office
at Jadugora Mines, P.O. and P.S. Jadugoda, District East
Singhbhum through its G.M. (Personnel-IR) Shri C.H.
Sharma, son of Late L.P. Sharma, Resident of E-2, UCIL
Colony, P.O. and P.S. Jadugora, 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, Engineers Bhawan, H.E.C.,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi.
2.Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Doranda,
P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), J.S.E.B ,
Engineers Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
7
District-Ranchi.
4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial &
Revenue), JUVNL, Singhbhum Supply Circle, Jamshedpur,
P.O. and P.S.Adityapur.
5. The Financial Controller (Rev.), J.S.E.B., Doranda, P.O.
and P.S.-Doranda, Ranchi .....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 465 of 2015
……..
MAHALAKSHMI FIBERS & INDUSTRIES LIMITED, a
company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956
having its Registered Office at 5, Synagogue Street, P.O.,
P.S. & District Kolkata and its manufacturing unit and
works at Ormanjhi, P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi, through
its Commercial Manager and duly constituted Attorney Shri
Jawahar Bhan, Son of Late, P.S. Bhan, Resident of P.O.
Ormanhji, P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi. ..… 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-Cum-Managing Director, Engineers' Bhawan,
H.E.C. P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District. Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, having its Head Office at
Baily Road P.O. & P.S. Baily Road, District- Patna, through
its Chairman.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, Baily Road, P.O. & P.S. Bailey Road,
District-Patna, Bihar
4. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, Patna. P.O. & P.S. Baily Rood, District-
Patna, Bihar.
5. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Ranchi Area
Electricity Supply (Earlier known as South Bihar and
Chhotanagpur Area Electricity Board),Kusai Colony,
Doranda, Ranchi. P.O. & P.S. Doranda
6. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi
Electrical Circle, Kusai Colony, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.
8
Doranda, District-Ranchi.
7. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue Electric Supply sub. Division, JCEB), office of the
Ranchi Electrical Circle Kusai Colony, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, Ranchi. ....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 470 of 2015
……..
M/s. Auto Profiles Ltd. (Unit-1), A company registered
under the provisions of Indian Companies Act having is
works at Plot Nos.33 - 34, 4th Phase, Gamharia, P.O. and
P.S. Gamharia, District-SeraikellaKharsawan, through its
Managing Director Sri Bikash Mukherjee, son of Late P
Mukherjee, resident of 457, G-Road, West Layout, P.O. and
P.S. Sonari, Town-Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East.
..… Appellant
Versus
1. JHARKHAND BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, having its
Head Office at Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, through its Managing Director.
2.The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Kusai
Colony, Doranda P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
3. The Finance Controller (Revenue), Jharkhand State
Electricity Board, Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi.
4. General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Jharkhand
BijliVitran Nigam Limited, Jamshedpur Division, Co-
operative Building, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town-
Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
5. Electrical Executive Engineer, (Commercial & Revenue),
Electric Supply Circle, Adityapur, Vikash Bhawan,
Adityapur, P.O.and P.S. Adityapur, District- Seraikella
Kharsawan. .....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 481 of 2015
……..
M/S. Maithan Ceramics Ltd., a Company incorporated
under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its
Factory at Chirkunda, P.O. and P.S. Chirkunda, District
9
Dhanbad, through one of its Director Binod Kumar
Agarwal, son of Late Raghunath Agarwal, Resident of
Chirkunda, P.O. and P.S. Chirkunda, District - Dhanbad.
..… 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 cum - Managing Director,
Engineers' Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, having its Head Office at
Bailey Road, Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District -
Patna, through its Chairman.
3.The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road, Patna, P.O.
G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Patna.
4. Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road,
Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Patna.
5.General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area
Electricity Board, JUVNL, having its office at Combined
Building, P.O. and P.S. - Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad.
6.The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue), JUVNL, Electrical Supply Circle, P.O. and P.S. -
Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad.
.....Respondents
W ith
L.P.A. No. 482 of 2015
……..
M/S. Maithan Coal Co Pvt Ltd., a Company incorporated
under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its
Factory at Tetulia,, P.O. and P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad,
through one of its Directors Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma,, son
of R.S. Sharma, Resident of Chirkunda, P.O. and P.S.
Chirkunda, District - Dhanbad. ..… Appellant
Versus
10
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 cum - Managing Director,
Engineers' Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, having its Head Office at
Bailey Road, Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District -
Patna, through its Chairman.
3.The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road, Patna, P.O.
G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Patna.
4. Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road,
Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Patna.
5.General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area
Electricity Board, JUVNL, having its office at Combined
Building, P.O. and P.S. - Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad.
6.The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue), JUVNL, Electrical Supply Circle, P.O. and P.S. -
Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad.
.....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 483 of 2015
……..
1. M/S. Mugma Coke Oven Pvt ltd a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its
factory at Mugma, P.O. Mugma, P.S. Nirsha, district-
Dhanbad through one of its Directors Sri Shri
JalajChowdhary son of Shri Krishna MurariChowdhary ,
resident of Chirkunda, P.O. & P. S - Chirkunda, District -
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
2. M/s Shree Dwarka Bee Hive Plant PvtLtd., a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its
factory at Egarpore, P.O. Egarpore, P.S. Chirkunda,
district- Dhanbad Jharkhand through one of its present
Director, Sri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Son of Shri Radhey
Shyam Sharma, resident of Hariyana Colony, Upper Bazar
11
G.T. Road, P.O. & P.S. Chirkuna, Dhanbad, Jharkhand
..… Appellants
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 cum Managing Director,
Engineers' Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi.
2.Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman a
body constituted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910,
having its Head Office at Bailey Road, Patna, P.Ο. G.P.O.,
P.S. Kotwali, District - Patna,
3. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road, Patna, P.O.
G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District – Patna
4. Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road,
Patna, P.O, G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Patna.
5.General Manager- cum- Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area
Electricity Board, JUVNL, having its office at Combined
Building, P.O, and P.S, Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
6. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue), JUVNL, Electrical Supply Circle, P.O, and P.S. -
Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
7. Electrical Executive Engineer, Commercial & Revenue,
Electric Supply Circle, P.O, and P.S. Dhanbad, District
Dhanbad.
8.The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Dhanbad. .....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 484 of 2015
……..
1. M/S. Arun Refractories, a partnership firm, having its
factory at Chirkunda, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda , District,
Dhanbad through one of its partners Sri, SUSHIL Kumar
Gadhyan son of Late Rajkumar Gadhyan, resident of
Chirkunda, P.O. & P. S Chirkunda, Distric t - Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.
12
2. M/s Sharad Refractories Pvt Ltd. a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its
factory at Chirkunda, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, District ,
Dhanbad through one of its Directors Sri Arun Agarwal son
of Late Bihari Agarwal, resident of Chirkunda P.O. & P. S -
Chirkunda, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. M/s Associated Ceramics Ltd., a company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 having its factory at
Chirkunda, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda District, Dhanbad
through one of its Directors Sri Arun Agarwal , son of Late
Bihari Agarwal, resident of Chirkunda P.O. & P. S -
Chirkunda, District Jharkhand. ..… Appellants
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 cum Managing Director,
Engineers' Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, having its Head Office at
Bailey Road, Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. District Patna,
through its Chairman.
3. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road, Patna, P.O.
G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Patna.
4. Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road,
Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Patna.
5. General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area
Electricity Board, JUVNL, having its office at Combined
Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad.
6.The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue), JUVNL, Electrical Supply Circle, P.O. and P.S. + -
Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad.
7. The superintending Engineer, Dhanbad.
.....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 485 of 2015
13
……..
M/S. SRI DURGA CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, a
company incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956, having its unit at Hesla, Argada
Road, Ramgarh Cantonment through one its Executive
Director Sri Naresh Kumar Iyangar son of Late A.K. Iyangar
resident of Bharechnagar, Ramgarh Cantonment, P.O.
Bharechnagar& P.S. Kujju, Dist. Ramgarh. ..… Appellant
Versus
1.JHARKHAND URJA VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED (Earlier
known as JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD),
having its office at Engineers Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi through its Chairman, Project Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi
2. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, Vidyut Bhawan,
Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S.- Bailley Road, District -Patna
through its Chairman.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial & T.A.), Manager, Bihar
State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S.- Bailley
Road, District - Patna.
4. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S.- Bailley Road, District
Patna.
5. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Jharkhand
UrjaVitaran Nigam Limited (earlier Dhanbad) now
Hazaribagh Electric Supply Area, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh.
Hazaribagh, Town & District
6. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Hazaribagh.
P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, Town & District - Hazaribagh.
7. Electrical Executive Engineer (C & R), Electrical Circle,
Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, Town & District -
Hazaribagh .....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 498 of 2015
……..
M/s. R. K. Industries, a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its Head Office at 144, Sakchi
Market, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Town-Jamshedpur, District-
Singhbhum East and works at 11 & 12, Phase-IV,
Adityapur Industrial Area, P.O, & P.S. Gamharia, District-
14
SeraikelaKharsawan through its PatnerBalkrishna
Choudhary, Son of Late Lal Chand Choudhary, resident of
144, Sakchi Market, P.O. & P. S. Sakchi, Town-
Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East. ..… Appellant
Versus
1.JharkhandState Electricity Board, now Jharkhand Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited, Engineering Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi through its Chairman.
2. General Manager-Cum-Chief Chief Engineer, Singhbhum
Area, Cooperative Building, Bistupur, PO. and P.S.
Bistupur, Town- Jamshedur, District-Singhbhum East.
3. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan,
Serpantine Road, Patna through its Chairman, Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna. .....Respondents
with
L.P.A. No. 499 of 2015
……..
M/s. JMT Auto Ltd., a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its accounts and project office
at C-19/20, 7th Phase, Adityapur Industrial Area, P.O. and
P.S. Adityapur, District-SeraikellaKharswan, through its
Company Secretary, Mona Bahadur, daughter of Ravindra
Bhadur, Resident of Bijaya Heritage P.O. and P.S. Sonari,
Town Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East.
..… Appellant
Versus
1.Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Now Jharkhand Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited, Engineering Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area,
Cooperative Building, Bistupur, PO. and P.S. Bistupur,
Town- Jamshedur, District-Singhbhum East.
3. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan,
Serpantine Road, Patna through its Chairman, Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna
.....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 505 of 2015
15
……..
M/s. JMT Auto Ltd.(Unit-2), a company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 having its accounts and project
office at C-19/20, 7th Phase, Adityapur Industrial Area,
P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District-SeraikellaKharswan,
through its Company Secretary, Mona Bahadur, daughter
of Ravindra Bhadur, Resident of Bijaya Heritage P.O.
and P.S. Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum
East. ..… Appellant
Versus
1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Now Jharkhand Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited, Engineering Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area,
Cooperative Building, Bistupur, PO. and P.S. Bistupur,
Town- Jamshedur, District-Singhbhum East.
3. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan,
Serpantine Road, Patna through its Chairman, Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna.
.....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 508 of 2015
……..
M/s. Bihar Caustics & Chemicals Ltd. (now known as M/s.
Aditya Birla Chemicals (India) Ltd.), having its Factory and
Registered Office at village - Rehla, P.S. Garhwa Road,
District Palamau, through its Legal Officer and authorized
signatory Shri Shailendra Panday, son of Shri H.N. Pandey,
Resident of-293 K, Lake Avenue, P.O. and P.S. Gonda,
Kanke, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834008.
..… Appellant
Versus
1. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board,KusaiColony,
Ranchi, through its Chairman, NOW 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, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District – Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, PO.-G.PO.
16
P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna, Bailey Road, Patna through its
Chairman.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial & T.A.), Manager, Bihar
State Electricity Board PO.-G.PO. P.S. Kotwali, District-
Patna, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Patna, Bailey Road,
Patna.
5. The General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer,
ChhotanagpurArea Electricity Board, Doranda, Ranchi, now
The General Manager - cum - Chief Engineer, Daltonganj,
P.O. and P.S. -Daltonganj, Town Daltonganj, District -
Palamau.
6. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, transmission
Circle, Kusai Colony, Doranda Ranchi, Now Electrical
Superintending Engineer, Supply Circle, Daltonganj, P.O.
and P.S.-Daltonganj, District - Palamau.
7. Assistant Executive Engineer, Supply Sub-Station,
Garhwa Grid, Garhwa Road, P.O. and P.S. - Garhwa Road,
District - Palamau. .....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 542 of 2015
……..
M/S. USHA MARTIN LTD. (Earlier known as M/s. Usha
Beltron Ltd.), A Company incorporated under the provisions
of Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 2A,
Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata, P.O. Shakespeare Sarani,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, District Kolkata, West Bengal
through its General Manager (Commercial) Sri N.K. Patodia,
son of Late R.D. Patodia, Resident of Deputy Para, P.O.
GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi. ..… 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, H.E.C., P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, through its Chairman,
17
having its Head Office at Bailey Road, P.O G.P.O., P.S.
Kotwali, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, P.O G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali
Patna.
4. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, P.O - G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali Patna.
5.General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Ranchi Area
Electricity Supply (Earlier known as South Bihar and
Chhotanagpur Area Electricity Board), Kusai Colony,
Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Ranchi, R.Np.5 as per the
certified copy: The General Manager Cum Chief Engineer,
Singhbhum Area Electricity Board , Bistupur, P.O, P.S.
Bistupur, District-Jamshedpur.
6. The Electricity Superintending Engineer, Ranchi
Electrical Circle, Kusai Colony, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. -
Doranda, District - Ranchi.
7. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply
Circle, having its office at Jamshedpur Vikash Bhawan,
Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District-Seraikella
Kharsawan, R.No.7 as per C.C: The Electrical
Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Jamshedpur.
8. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial &
Revenue), Office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer,
Ranchi Electrical Circle, Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S.-
Doranda Ranchi. R.No8 as per C.C.: The office of the
Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue) ,
office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi,
Electrical Circle, at Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
Ranchi.
9. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial &
Revenue) Office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer,
Electric Supply Circle, Vikas Bhawan, Adityapur, P.O. and
P.S. Adityapur, District-Seraikella Kharsawan, West
Singhbhum R. No.9, as per CC: The Electrical Executive
Engineer (Commercial and Revenue), Office of the Electrical
Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Jamshedpur. .....Respondents
With
18
L.P.A. No. 581 of 2015
……..
M/s UBL INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENT LIMITED, (WIRE
MILL DIVISION) (Now known as Usha Martin Ltd. (Bar and
Wire Mills Division Unit-I & II), a Company incorporated
under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered Office at 8, Chittaranjan Avenue, P.O. & P.S.
Chittaranjan Avenue, District Kolkata and its works at Plot
No. 34, Phase-IV, Adityapur Industrial Area, Gamharia,
P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum, through its General Manager (Works) Sri I.
Mitra, Son of A.K.Mitra, Resident of Adityapur Industrial
Area, Gamharia, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum. ..… 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-cum-Managing Director,
Engineers Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, having its Head Office at
Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S. Baily Road, District Patna, through
its Chairman.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S. Baily Road,
District Patna.
4. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S. Baily Road, District Patna.
5. General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area ,
Electricity Board, Bistupur, Jamshedpur
6.The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply
Circle Jamshedpur.
7. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial &
Revenue), office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer,
Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur. .....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 585 of 2015
……..
19
M/s UBL INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENT LIMITED, (WIRE
MILL DIVISION) (Now known as Usha Martin Ltd. (Bar and
Wire Mills Division Unit-I & II), a Company incorporated
under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered Office at 8, Chittaranjan Avenue, P.O. & P.S.
Chittaranjan Avenue, District Kolkata and its works at Plot
No. 34, Phase-IV, Adityapur Industrial Area, Gamharia,
P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum, through its General Manager (Works) Sri I.
Mitra, Son of A.K.Mitra, Resident of Adityapur Industrial
Area, Gamharia, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum. ..… 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-cum-Managing Director,
Engineers Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, having its Head Office at
Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S. Baily Road, District Patna, through
its Chairman.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S. Baily Road,
District Patna.
4. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, P.O. & P.S. Baily Road, District Patna.
5. General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area ,
Electricity Board, Bistupur, Jamshedpur
6. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply
Circle Jamshedpur.
7. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial &
Revenue), office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer,
Electric Supply Circle, Jamshedpur. .....Respondents
W ith
L.P.A. No. 597 of 2015
20
……..
M/S. BIHAR EXTRUSIONS LTD, A Company incorporated
under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its
factory at Industrial area, Gamharia, District Singhbhum
(East) through its authorized signatory Sri Rahul Tantia,
son of Ishwari Prasad Tantia, resident of 96, Narkeldanga
Main Road, P.O.- Kankurgachi and P.S. Phoolbagan,
District- West Bengal, Kolkata. ..… Appellant
Versus
1.Earlier Known as “ Bihar State Electricity Board having it
office at Baily Road, Patna through its Chairman” in the
matter; M/s Bihar Extrusions Ltd. having its factory at
Industrial Area, Gambharia, District-Singhbhum (East),
through its authorized Signatory, Now known as,
JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED" (Earlier known
as) " Jharkhand State Electricity Board having it office at
Engineers Bhawan, H.E.C Dhurwa, Ranchi, through its
Chairman, Project Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, through its Chairman
having its Head Office at Bailey Road, P.O. G.P.O, P.S.-
Kotwali Patna.
3. The Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board, having its
Head Office at Bailey Road, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali Patna,
4. The State of Bihar through its Secretary (Energy) Energy
Department, Government of Bihar 8 DarogaRai Path Patna-
800001, Bihar, P.O.-GPO and P.S. Kotwali.
5.The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, P.O. G.P.O, P.S.- Kotwali
Patna.
6. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Bailey Road, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali Patna.
7. General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur Area
Electricity Board, Bistupur, PO & P.S. Bistupur, Town
Jamshedpur
8. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue) Office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer,
Electric Supply Circle, Vikash Bhawan, Adityapur, P.O. and
P.S. Adityapur, District-Seraikella Kharsawan, as per CC,
21
the Electrical Sup./Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Rev), BSEB, Electric Supply Circle Jamshedpur.
.....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 599 of 2015
……..
M/S TATA STEEL LIMITED (previously known as M/S. Tata
Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.,) a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 24,
Homi Mody Street, Fort, Bombay and works at Jamshedpur
in the State of Jharkhand through its Legal Head, Mrs
Meena Lall wife Sri Behari Lall and Chief Legal, (Corporate
Services), Tata Steel limited, Jamshedpur, resident of R/o
B-228, G. K. -1 P.O and P.S-G.K-1, New- Delhi - 49.
..… Appellant
Versus
1. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, having its Head Office at
Bailey Road, Patna, P.O,G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Patna,
through its Chairman having his office at Bailey Road,
Patna, P.O. Kotwall, District - Patna. G.P.O., P.S.Kotwali,
District-Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer (Commercial and T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road,
Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Patna.
3. The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road, Patna, P.O.
G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District - Patna.
4. General Manager- cum- Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area
Electricity Board, P.O AND P.S Bistupur, Jamshedpur
District Singhbhum (east) PIN 831001 (previously under
General Manager cum Chief Engineer, South Bihar and
Chhotanagpur Area Electricity Board, Kusai Colony,
Doranda, Ranchi).
5. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jamshedpur
Electric Circle, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited
(Earlier Bihar State Electricity Board) having its office at
Vikash Bhawan, Adityapur, P.O, and P.S. Adityapur,
Jamshedpur District - Singhbhum (East)
6. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
22
Revenue), Electric Supply Sub-Division, Jharkhand Urja
Vikash Nigam Limited (Earlier Bihar State Electricity Board)
Vikash Bhawan, Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. - Adityapur,
District - Singhbhum (East).
7.JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED (Earlier
known as JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
which is successor of erstwhile Bihar State Electricity
Board), having its office at Engineers Bhawan, HEC,
Dhurwa, Ranchi through its Chairman, Project Bhawan,
H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
.....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 610 of 2015
……..
MECON LIMITED. (formerly known as Metallurgical &
Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd.), a Company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and a
Government of India Undertaking having its Registered
Office at Doranda, Ranchi through its DGM 1/c TA&CD, Sri
Vijay Khanna, son of Late G.D.Khanna, resident of Flat no.
204, Ishwar Enclave, P.P Compound, Ranchi -834001, P. O.
Hindpiri and P.S. Hindpiri, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
..… 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 cum Managing Director,
Engineers' Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
Indian Electricity Act, 1910, through its Chairman, having
its Head Office at Bailey Road, Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.
District - Patna
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial & T.A.), Bihar State
Electricity Board, Bailey Road, having its Head Office at
Bailey Road, Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District -
Patna.
4.The Financial Controller (Rev.), Bihar State Electricity
Board, having its Head Office at Bailey Road, Patna, P.O.
23
G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Patna.
5. General Manager cum Chief Engineer, JHARKHAND
URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, Kusai colony Doranda,
Ranchi. P.O and P.S- Doranda, District- Ranchi.
6. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi
Electrical Circle 'Kusai colony Doranda, Ranchi. P.O and
P.S- Doranda, District- Ranchi.
7. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue), JUVNL, Electrical Supply Circle, P.O. and P.S. -
Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad. .....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 613 of 2015
……..
M/s. Gajanan Minerals Private Limited, a Company
incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act,
1956 having its Works and Office at Plot No.B047 and B-
29,1st Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.
Adityapur, District-SeraikellaKharsawan through its
Director Kaushal Singhal, Son of Sri Kailash Chandra
Singhal resident of B-47, 1st Phase, Industrial Area,
Adityapur, P.O. & P. S. Adityapur, District-Seraikella
Kharsawan. ..… Appellant
Versus
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, having its Head
Office at Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P. S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi through its Managing Director.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, having its office at Vidhut
Bhawan, Patna, through its Chairman, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.
Kotwali, Patna, District-Patna.
3. The Finance Controller (Revenue), Jharkhand State
Electricity Board, Kusai Colony, P.O. and P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi.
4. General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited, Jamshedpur Division, Co-operative
Building, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur,
District-Singhbhum East.
5. Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial & Revenue),
Electric Supply Circle, Jharkhand Bijali Vitran Nigam Ltd.
24
Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District-Seraikella,
Kharsawan.
6. Chief Engineer (Commercial), Bihar State Electricity
Board, Fraser Road, P.O., G.P.O, P.s. Kotwali, District-
Patna. .....Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 616 of 2015
……..
M/S. B.M.C. Metal Cast Ltd., A Company incorporated
under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its
factory at A-1819, 2nd Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur,
P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District SeraikellaKharsawan-
832109, through its Executive Director Shri Deepak
Dokania, Son of Shri Mahaveer Ram, Resident of - 7,
Circuit House Area (North West), Sonari, P.O. and P.S.
Sonari Town Jamshedpur, 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, H.E.C., P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, through its Chairman
having its Head Office at Bailey Road, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.-
Kotwali Patna,.
3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, having its
Head Office at Bailey Road, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.-
KotwaliPatna,.
4. General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur Area
Electricity Board, Bistupur, P.O & P.S.- Bistupur, Town
Jamshedpur
5. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue), Office of the Electrical Superintending Engineer,
Electric Supply Circle, Vikash Bhawan, Adityapur, P.O. and
P.S. Adityapur, District –Seraikella Kharsawan.
.....Respondents
With
25
L.P.A. No. 43 of 2016
……..
M/S. Tetuliya Coke Plant Pvt. Ltd., A Company
incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956,
having its factory at Govindpur, P.O. and P.S. - Govindpur,
District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand through one of its Directors
Shri ShaileshAgarwala, son of Late Birendra Kumar
Agarwala, Resident of - SukhiNiwas, P.O. and P.S. -
Govindpur, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
..… 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, H.E.C., P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2.Bihar State Electricity Board, a body constituted under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, through its Chairman
having its Head Office at Bailey Road, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.-
Kotwali Patna.
3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, having its
Head Office at Bailey Road, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.- Kotwali
Patna.
4.General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area
Electricity Board, Combined Building, P.O & P.S.-
Dhanbad, Town Dhanbad.
5. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and
Revenue), Electrical Supply Circle, Dhanbad, Combined
Building, P.O & P.S.-Dhanbad, Town - Dhanbad.
.....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGONMUKHOPADHYAY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M.S.Mittal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Salona Mittal, Adv.
[in L.P.A. Nos. 305/15, 431/15, 444/15, 448/15,
449/15, 454/15, 463/15, 481/15, 482/15,
483/15, 484/15, 508/15, 542/15, 597/15,
26
610/15, 616/15, & 63/16]
Mr. BirenPoddar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. PiyushPoddar, Adv
(in LPA No. 465/2015, 581/2015 & 585/20150
M/S. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Adv.
(In LPA No. 410/2015, 470/2015, 498/ 2015,
498/2015, 505/2015 & 613/2015
Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Adv.
(In LPA No. 508 of 2015)
Mr. M.B.Lal, Advocate
[ in L.P.A Nos. 444/15, 448/15, 449/15, 454/15 &
463/15]
Ms. Monika Kumari
[ in L.P.A. No. 508/15]
For the JUVNL/JSEB :Mr. Shri Venkatesh, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.II
For the JUVNL : Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
For the BSEB : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv
---------
CAV on:-21.06.2024 Pronounced on:-31/08/2024
Per Deepak Roshan J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in these batch of appeals is to the
common judgment passed by the writ court in batch of writ
petitions by Order dated 08.05.2015; wherein the Writ
Petition filed by the respective petitioner-consumer was
dismissed.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the erstwhile Bihar
State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as BSEB)
had notified a new power tariff dated 21.06.1993 which was
made effective from 01.07.1993.
In the said tariff clause 16.10deals with operational
charges-
i. “Operational charges” contains two elements i.e.
“other operational charge” and “fuel surcharge”.
ii. Other operational charge was struck down by the
Hon’ble High Court in the case of Bihar 440 Vidyut
Upbhokta Sangh Vs. B.S.E.B. (1994) 2 PLJR 103 and
affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported
in (1997) 11 SCC 380).
27
iii. Clause 16.10.1 specifies the categories of the
consumers which were required to pay the
operational surcharge at the rate to be determined
every year in accordance with the formula.
iv. Clause 16.10.3 of the tariff specifies of the formula
for calculation in increase in the rate of fuel
surcharge.
v. Clause 17 of the tariff specifies that the entire rate of
fuel surcharge amounting to 32 paise per unit had
been merged with the tariff rates.
4. From time- to-time various circulars were issued by the
Board fixing various rates of fuel surcharge. Finally, for the
consumers this final rate of fuel surcharge was raised much
after the actual accounting period, resulting in the fact that
after completion of books of accounts of the year, huge
liability accrued upon the consumers which could not be
recovered by them from their customers resulting in huge
losses and ultimate closure of various industries.
5. A batch of writ petitions were filed before the Patna
High Court, with the lead case being that of M/s Pulak
Enterprises being CWJC No. 5542 of 1999.The Patna High
Court delivered its judgment dated 26.06.2000 (Ann – 1). In
the said judgment the High Court held that –
(i) “Purchase of electricity from TVNL cannot be made a
component of H-3”; and as such purchase of
electricity from TVNL has to be deleted as competent
of H-3 (Refer Paras 34 & 35).
(ii) There could not be two rates of supply of electricity
by DVC, i.e., Supply by DVC to TISCO and supply by
DVC to BSEB, and as such for the component of D-3
there can only be one rate as the source is one. (Refer
Para-36).
(iii) The High Court also dealt with the issue of Rs. 100
Crore paid by the Coal Companies to the Board, but
no specific direction was issued on that (Refer para -
40).
6. Pursuant to said Judgment of Patna High Court, both
the BSEB as well as consumers approached the Supreme
28
Court of India. BSEB challenged findings of the Division
Bench of Patna High Court so far as TVNL issue and deemed
supply by DVC (and consequently the dual rate for D3) are
concerned. The consumers filed their Appeals on the issue of
Rs. 100 Crores, wherein though the issue was referred in the
judgment, but no specific direction was given.
Since, no stay was granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court
and in order to collect fuel surcharge, the BSEB, pursuant to
direction of the Patna High Court in Pulak Enterprises case,
issued various Circulars of fuel surcharge which were claimed
to be in gross contravention of the Patna High Court
Judgment and these circulars were challenged in the batch of
writ petitions by the consumers, being CWJC No. 2758 of
2000(R) and analogous cases. It is the order passed in these
batch of cases which has been impugned in the present
Appeals.
In the meantime, all the appeals were disposed of by
the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 15.4.2009.
7. As a matter of fact, the BSEB was getting
reimbursement of increased cost of power from the certain
categories of consumers on quarterly / yearly basis since
long. In the year 1999 when they issued circulars for fuel
surcharge, consumers challenged the validity of calculation
before the Patna High Court bench, later on Jharkhand High
Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well.
8. Present issue is also related to the method of
calculation of fuel surcharge which was calculated against the
order of Patna High Court as well as Supreme Court of India,
although BSEB/JSEB claiming that they have calculated the
rate of fuel surcharge in line with the order of High Court and
Supreme Court of India. This is the reason, so many
petitioners challenged the calculation by filing various writ
petitions and later on Appeal before this Court. With consent
of the parties; leading case has been considered for hearing
29
purpose is LPA No. 305 of 2015which has been filed by Usha
Martin.
9. In this LPA, Usha Martin challenged the validity of the
bills amounting to Rs.107.73 crores (For principal amount
Rs.23.85 crores and DPS Rs.83.88 crores). Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India stayed the DPS of Rs.83.88 crores and directed
Usha Martin to pay Principal amount of Rs.23.85 crores
which Usha Martin has paid.
10. In all these LPAs, what can be culled out from the
argument by the learned senior counsel / counsel of the
appellants is that largely on five issues plus on charging of
DPS has affected the rate of fuel surcharge drastically for the
year 1996-97 to 2000-01 which was valid up to 31.03.2003.
The same are discussed hereunder under:
(i) TVNL issue: TVNL came into existence in the year 1996-97
whereas base year for calculation of fuel surcharge is 1991-
92, as such, Division bench of Patna High Court and Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India both has directed Electricity Board
not to consider the increase in cost on account of TVNL as
TVNL was not existence in the year 1991-92 i.e. base year.
Year As per
calculation of
the Board
(paise KWH)
As per the Consumers
Calculation should have been as
per UML (Paise KWH)
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-2000
2000-01 to
31.03.2003
86.25
137.20
164.83
204.4
244.01
79.58
115.76
140.54
186.36
Data not available for
calculation.
II) Providing credit of Rs.100 crores while calculating
the rate of fuel surcharge on account of credit receivable by
BSEB from CCL. A/c. due to the inferior quality of coal supply
in the year 1996-97.It has been submitted that after hearing
the argument of Board, Patna High Court as well as Hon'ble
30
Apex Court has directed to consider credit of Rs.100 crores in
the year 1998-99 instead of 1997-98.
iii) Higher amount of increased cost of fuel considered
in Calculation of Fuel Surcharge Rate in the matter of
DVC.
(a) Deemed supply to TISCO: TISCO is in outside
command area of DVC, as such, to avail DVC Power, they
have entered into a tripartite agreement with BSEB/ DVC
wherein it was decided that DVC will bill to TISCO at BSEB
Rate but will charge to BSEB at DVC Rate. Differential
amount will be adjusted by DVC against the power supply to
BSEB. It has been submitted that while calculating the fuel
surcharge rate, Board considered increase in DVC charge at
two rates i.e. one for direct supply to DVC and another one to
BSEB. Hon'ble Courts passed order that there cannot be two
rates for the source being one; as such, directed BSEB to
charge the rate at which DVC supplied the power to BSEB.
(b) In addition, DVC tariff from the year 1991-92 to
1996-97 increased every year but BSEB has considered this
increase only from 01.05.1997. While making the calculation
of Fuel Surcharge, BSEB considered increased rate of DVC
tariff.
iv) Charging of fuel surcharge on unconsumed units of
LTIS, CS 2 and CS 3 categories of consumers who are
entitled to pay for minimum guarantee unit.
It has been submitted that while issuing the fuel
surcharge circular, BSEB has considered only actual
consumed units by these categories of consumers; whereas
BSEB has charged fuel surcharge on unconsumed units also.
The issue has been raised before the court that these
unconsumed units are also being considered for arriving at
the rate of fuel surcharge as Board has already collected the
money from these categories of consumers.
31
(v) Recalculation of fuel surcharge after the bifurcation
of Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) from Bihar
State Electricity Board (BSEB) with effect from
01.04.2001.
This issue was raised for the first time before the writ
court stating therein that JSEB has bifurcated from BSEB
and have started functioning independently of their own.
Ratio of power consumption is different after the bifurcation.
As per lump sum calculation it was observed that earlier
almost 30-35% power was being consumed by bifurcated
BSEB and 65% to 70% power was being used by the
consumer of JSEB. In addition, major industrial consumers
i.e. Fuel Surcharge payable consumers are in the area of
JSEB, as such, recalculation of fuel surcharge rate from
01.04.2001 to 31.12.2003 is necessary based on the actual
figure of JSEB keeping the formula intact.
(vi) DPS:
(a) In this regard, it has been submitted that BSEB has
issued a circular reducing therein the rate of fuel surcharge
by 6.04 paise/kwh considering only Rs.23.22 crores in
calculation of fuel surcharge for the year 1998-99; whereas
they were required to consider Rs.100 crores; if considered
Rs.100 crores, expected reduction in the rate of fuel
surcharge will be about 26 paise per/kwh.It has been
contended that the Board has not given effect of this circular
while issuing the fuel surcharge bill as such, they will have to
issue new bills. Once the new bills are issued, DPS has to go.
b) On this issue, it has been further contended by the
appellants that there are various orders of various High
Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ordering therein
that once the bills are revised; DPS has to be set aside. In the
present case Board has already issued revised circular for the
year 1998-99 reducing therein the rate of fuel surcharge by
6.04 paise/KWH only considering Rs.23.22 crores in
32
calculation, with regards to inferior quality of coal. Effect of
this circular was not given by the Board in the fuel surcharge
bills which are under challenge.
11. At the outset, Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, senior
Counsel and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate appearing for
respective appellants have submitted the following formula in
order to appreciate the issue of fuel surcharge involved in this
case. He referred the judgment rendered in the case of
Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Bihar SEB, 1984 Supp SCC 161,
and contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
“Though the nomenclature given to the levy is “fuel surcharge”
it is really a surcharge levied to meet the increased cost of
generation and purchase of electricity”. In this background,
the formula of Fuel Surcharge in the 1993 Tariff is
reproduced herein below
33
12. From the impugned order it transpires that during the
course of hearing, the writ Court culled out five issues which
were for consideration before the Court. The same are as
follows:[Refer: Para 17].
I. Whether the deletion of TVNL component from H1 & H2
along with H3 is against the mandates of the Hon’ble Patna
High Court in M/s. Pulak Enterprises case and if so, on that
ground the impugned Circulars are liable to be quashed?
II. Whether while recalculating the rates of fuel surcharge, as
per the decision of M/s Pulak Enterprises case, it was
imperative for the Board to exclude the power supply by the
DVC to the TISCO from the arena of consultation?
III. Whether the Board can be directed to recalculate the rates of
fuel surcharge after taking into account the unconsumed
units of CS and LT consumers on which the Board levied
fuel surcharge?
IV. Whether the Board could be directed to recalculate the rates
of fuel surcharge after adjusting Rs. 100 crores receivable by
the Boards from the Coal Companies?
V. Whether after the creation of the State of Jharkhand, the
formula prescribed for calculation of the rates of fuel
surcharge is required to be reformulated and consequently
rates be reworked out ?
13. Learned senior counsel representing the
appellants had advanced his argument on the issues involved
in this batch of appeals; which are summarized herein below:
For the purpose of calculation of fuel surcharge in
terms of the 1993 tariff, the base year taken by the B.S.E.B.
to calculate the proportionate increase in rate of purchase
from external sources, was 1991-92.
Accordingly, since TVNL came into existence only in
1996 – 97, there could have been no increase from the base
year of 1991-92 as TVNL did not exist during the base year.
The Patna High Court in Pulak Enterprises has dealt
with the Issue No.1 at para -34 &Para-35, Para 43and para
44.
The Division Bench of Patna High Court clearly stated
that that “In my view, on the admitted facts, it is not possible
34
to allow the Board to include purchase of electricity as a
component of H3 without suitably amending the formula in
accordance with law.”
Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the Board to
re-work out the rate of fuel surcharge in the year 1996-97
after deleting the purchase of electricity from TVNL as
component of H3.
Though the Patna High Court directed the Board to
delete TVNL from H3, it is discernible from a reading of the
entire finding on this issue was that purchase from TVNL was
not to be taken into consideration altogether, i.e., from the
numerator side of the formula – both H1 and H3. This is
because if the TVNL component in H3 is taken as ‘0’, then the
TVNL component in ‘H1’ would also become ‘0’. Thus ,
purchases from TVNL would be excluded altogether.
This is further evident from the fact that the counsel
for BSEB had specifically contended before the Patna High
Court that if TVNL is not to be included in H3, then
consequence will that units purchased from TVNL would have
to be kept out. However, the Court negated the same by
saying that it will create a different base year and that
purchase from TVNL cannot be included unless the BSEB
changes it formula, which it has admittedly not done.
When the matter went to Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
Hon’ble Court in its judgment dealt with this issue at para 61
to 62 and confirmed the findings of Patna High Court.
It is also important to mention that H1 contains
purchase from other sources ‘respectively’ meaning thereby
that H1 also includes other sources apart from TVNL. Same is
the position for H3. Thus, H1 and H3 are not just TVNL.
He relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Canara Bank v. Debasis Das , (2003) 4 SCC 557, wherein it
has been held that “The expression “respectively” means
35
belonging or relating separately to each of several people. It is
a word of severance.”
Therefore, it has been contended by the Sr. Counsel
that essentially the BSEB had to take from H3, the TVNL
component as ‘0’ and multiply it with the TVNL component in
H1, which would result in excluding the purchase of
electricity from TVNL altogether, as was the mandate of Pulak
Enterprises by the Patna High Court and that of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. An illustration of the following formula has
been tendered during the course of hearing; for brevity, the
same is extracted herein below:
Illustration
Other Sources (H): For eg., NTPC and TVNL
Units Purchased
Purchase Rate
Originally
Others 1000 Rs. 0.50
TVNL 500 Rs. 0.10
Thus, increased cost = (1000 x 0.5) + (500 x 0.10)
= 500 + 50
= 550
I) As per HC direction
Others 1000 Rs. 0.50
TVNL 500 Rs. 0.00
Thus, increased cost = (1000 x 0.5) + (500 x 0.0)
= 500 + 0
= 500
II) Mischief by BSEB
Others 1000 Rs. 0.50
TVNL 500 -
Thus, increased cost = (1000 + 500) x 0.50
= 1500 x 0.50
= 750
It has been further submitted that the BSEB in
purported compliance of the directions in Pulak Enterprises
however, excluded TVNL from H1 and H2 also. They did this,
in order to show that deleting all three components from ‘H’,
would result in lower rate of Fuel Surcharge. Annexure-L to
the additional counter affidavit dated 15.2.2001 was relied in
this regard.
36
However, reliance on the said annexure is a mere
eyewash. It is evident that for the year 1996-1997, the total
units purchased from other sources was 737.82 Mkwh (H1)
and the average rate of purchase was 60.57 (H3). Thus, the
total cost of increase came to Rs. 4468.98 Lakhs (H1 x H3).
As per the direction of High Court, purchases from TVNL were
to be excluded altogether; however, in the column showing
compliance of the High Court, a higher figure has been
shown, i.e., Rs. 4872.56 Lakhs which cannot be possible if
purchase from TVNL is altogether excluded. This has arisen
due to the fact that BSEB has not reduced units purchased
from TVNL from H1, which it ought to have done.
Furthermore, it can be seen that in 1996-97, the BSEB
has tried to show that by deleting H1, H2, and H3, the rate
had come to 86.25 paise; whereas by deleting only H3, the
rate was 88.06 paise. However, in the subsequent year, i.e.,
1997-98, by deleting all three components, the rate comes to
137.20 paise; whereas by only deleting H3, the rate comes to
131.11paise. Thus, it was clear that the BSEB misinterpreted
the judgment and/or was flouting the judgment of the Patna
High Court in Pulak Enterprises.
However, in the impugned judgment, the Ld. Single
Judge while dealing with this issue at para 18 to 26 has failed
to apply the findings of the Patna High Court and the
Supreme Court Judgments and has held at para 26 of the
judgment that deletion of TVNL component from H1and H2 is
against the decision of the Division Bench Judgment of Patna
High Court in Pulak Enterprises; however, by the aforesaid
action of the Board, rate of fuel surcharge had not increased;
rather the same has decreased. Therefore, the Court did not
interfere with the said issue.
It has been contended that the writ Court was duty
bound to follow the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
37
In fact, reliance on annexure – L by the Ld. Single Judge was
also totally misplaced as shown hereinabove.
Further, the finding that if H3 is taken as 0, then
entire component on the numerator side will become 0 and
will result in excluding other sources apart from TVNL also,
was patently incorrect. As stated above, H1 and H3 contains
multiple other sources ‘respectively’. TVNL can certainly be
severed from H1 and H3 and excluded from the numerator
side. It was never the contention of the petitioners that all
other sources will also have to be excluded.
The Judgment of Patna High Court and the Supreme
Court never gave any permission to the Board to delete H2 in
entirety; as the unit sold from energy purchased from TVNL is
one of the sources of H2 and particularly because since the
units purchased from TVNL were being sold by the Board. By
deletion of sold units from denominator, obviously the rate of
fuel surcharge would increase. Therefore, the Impugned
Judgment so far TVNL issue is concerned is absolutely
erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
No party, defying the order of a High Court can take
recourse to the fact that substantial injustice has not been
done. The High Court has the power to reach injustice
wherever it is found (Refer:U.P. State Sugar Corpn .
Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon , (2008) 2 SCC 41 – Para
35) and it cannot on the basis of certain erroneous
calculations refuse to enforce the directions of the previous
Division Bench or of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reference in
this regard is also made to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer, (2003) 5
SCC 448 wherein it was held that “The earlier judgment may
seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the
later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction”. Relying upon the above,
Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that on this issue, the order
passed by the writ Court requires interference.
38
14. In respect of TVNL issue, the Respondents primarily
submitted the following:
(I) On a holistic and complete reading of the Judgment
passed in Pulak Enterprises; it is evident that the entire
component of TVNL had to be excluded all together, meaning
thereby that even from H2, the TVNL component had to be
excluded.
(II) Reliance was placed on Annexure-L to the Counter
Affidavit filed in the Writ proceedings. It was submitted that
by excluding all three components, a lower rate of fuel
surcharge was being computed and hence deletion of TVNL
from H1, H2 & H3 would inure to the benefit of the
consumers.
(III) Reference was made to para 19 of the Impugned Order
to submit that if the Petitioner’s argument is accepted, then
the entire component of H1 i.e., purchases from other sources
would become zero.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and
after going through the documents available before us it
appears that a complete reading of the Judgment in Pulak
Enterprises would make it evident that the Patna High Court
only directed that purchases from TVNL ought to be excluded
i.e. only on the numerator side of the formula.
There is no direction that the TVNL component from
H2 (denominator / units sold) also has to be deleted. As a
matter of fact, para 18 of the Impugned Order records that
deletion from H2 is against the Judgment of Pulak
Enterprises. Therefore, there can be no quarrel that deletion
of TVNL component from H2 was not contemplated by the
Judgment in Pulak Enterprises.
Reference in this regard is also made to the Judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Singh v.
U.P. Public Service Commission, reported in (2003) 11 SCC
584;whereinit was held that –
39
“10. …Observations of courts are not to be read as Euclid's
theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations
must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of
courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words,
phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for
Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions, but the discussion
is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes,
they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes;
their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.”
Therefore, the question of deducing something from a
judgment which is not expressly stated therein does not arise.
Moreover, such an argument made by the Respondents is
clearly oblivious to the formula of fuel surcharge; more
particularly that of H2. H2 has been defined to mean units
sold from purchases made from other sources on which fuel
surcharge is leviable.
Therefore, the units sold by which fuel surcharge
leviable was had to be included in H2 i.e. on the denominator
side. There is no dispute regarding the fact that units
purchased from TVNL were sold by the Board and fuel
surcharge was collected thereon. Therefore, TVNL cannot be
excluded from H2 by any reason whatsoever.
As far as reliance on Annexure-L is concerned; the
same can also not be countenanced for the following reasons:
(a) Firstly, while demonstrating compliance with the High
Court Order, the Board has not deducted TVNL
component from H1. This is contrary to the dictum of
Pulak Enterprises, which required the Board to
exclude purchases from TVNL. If TVNL component in
H3 is taken as zero and multiplied by the TVNL
component in H1, it would result in excluding
purchases from TVNL all together i.e. on the
numerator side.
(b) Even if it is assumed that calculation by the Board
with respect to compliance of the High Court Order
was correct, the benefit of deleting TVNL from H1, H2
40
& H3 was available only in 1996-97. However, a
reference to the working for the year 1997-98 would
show that deleting all three components would have
resulted in a higher rate. Therefore, the mischief
perpetrated by the Board was that it only showed
figures of one year.
Reliance on para 19 of the Impugned Judgment
was also inapposite. The Petitioner’s argument was
never that the entire component of H3 should be zero.
H3 contains of many sources and only TVNL
thereunder would have become zero. The remaining
component would still be there. H1 and H3 are not
just TVNL and only excluding TVNL component woul d
not result in making H1 as zero.
16. For issue No. 2 which relates to DVC; Ld. Sr.
Counsel contended that it relates to taking into consideration,
the sale of supply by DVC to Tata Steel and thereby taking
two rates of purchase i.e., one to BSEB by DVC and another
to Tata Steel by DVC was not permissible. However, the issue
has been erroneously framed by Ld. Single Judge in the
Impugned Judgment. It was never the contention of the
Petitioner that “deemed supply” was to be “excluded”. He
advanced following argument:
DVC was selling electricity to Tata Steel, which was not
in its command area and a Tripartite Agreement had
been entered among DVC, Tata Steel and BSEB
allowing sale of electricity by DVC to Tata Steel, at the
BSEB rate. It was admitted that the BSEB rate was
much higher than that of DVC. The arrangement was
that whatsoever extra that DVC was realising from Tata
Steel, was to be offset from the purchases made by
BSEB from DVC.
41
For an example, if rate of BSEB was Rs. 1.50 per unit
and the rate of DVC was Rs. 1/- per unit, DVC realised
the charges from Tata Steel @ Rs. 1.50 per unit which
was the rate of JSEB, and difference of rate between
BSEB and DVC i.e. 50 paise per unit was offset /
credited from supplies made from DVC to BSEB.
However, while making calculation of the formula for
fuel surcharge, both the rates of sale by DVC to Tata
Steel as well as sale by DVC to BSEB was taken, which
the Patna High Court held to be illegal.
The Division Bench of Patna High Court had dealt with
this issue of dual rate of DVC at para 36,para 37,and
gave findings at para 43 and 44. It was held that source
being one, i.e., DVC, two rates cannot be taken for the
purpose of computing D3.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with this issue of
“deemed supply” at para 51 and 521and approved the
Judgment of Patna High Court and Court in para 62
the Supreme Court held that they are in agreement
with conclusion of the High Court and Appeal filed by
the Board was accordingly dismissed.
However, while issuing the circulars in purported
compliance of the directions in Pulak Enterprises, it was
evident that the BSEB had deliberately misread the
judgment of the Hon’ble Court. The same is evident
from the calculations provide by the Board itself at
Annexure – D to the Counter Affidavit filed on
17.10.2000.
From the calculation chart it is evident that the BSEB
had taken the average rate for purchase by BSEB from
DVC and TISCO from DVC, which was not in
accordance with the judgment. The BSEB was to take
original rate of DVC and not the weighted average.
There was no such direction.
42
Another issue was that despite the fact DVC increased
its tariff on a few occasions after 1993, but the BSEB
continued to pay at the tariff prevailing at 1993 to DVC
and as a matter of fact, BSEB started paying at the
current rate of DVC only from 1997-98. The said fact is
also evident from Annexure - H to the additional
counter affidavit filed by the Board on 15.2.2001,
wherein the Board itself has stated that BSEB
“continued to admit the bill of DVC” at the tariff of 1991
“till 30.4.1997”.
The Ld. Single Judge dealt with this issue at para 27 of
the Impugned Judgment and held that “I find that the
Board had substantially complied the direction given in
M/s. Pulak Enterprises case”.
In this regard, the directions have to be fully complied
with and not substantially complied. The BSEB was not
allowed to take the weighted average, it had to be the
rate of tariff of DVC as recognized by the BSEB. In fact,
rather than “substantial compliance”, there has been
“no compliance” by BSEB. The requirement of taking
one rate for D3 as recognised by the Board, was a
mandatory direction and not merely directory, thus the
principle of substantial compliance would not apply at
all in the present case.
In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CCE v. Hari Chand Shri
Gopal, (2011) 1 SCC 236, wherein it was held that –
32. The doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention,
equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a
party does all that can reasonably be expected of it, but failed or
faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be
described as the “essence” or the “substance” of the requirements.
Like the concept of “reasonableness”, the acceptance or otherwise of
a plea of “substantial compliance” depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and the purpose and object to be
achieved and the context of the prerequisites which are essential to
achieve the object and purpose of the rule or the regulation. Such a
defence cannot be pleaded if a clear statutory prerequisite
which effectuates the object and the purpose of the statute
has not been met . Certainly, it means that the Court should
43
determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to
carry out the intent for which the statute was enacted and not a
mirror image type of strict compliance. Substantial compliance means
“actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every
reasonable objective of the statute” and the Court should determine
whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out
the intent of the statute and accomplish the reasonable objectives for
which it was passed.
On this ground, Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that this
issue of dual rate of DVC has also to be set aside.
17. With respect to DVC, the Respondents sought to argue
that -
(I) The Petitioner’s argument that sale by DVC to TISCO
was to be excluded all together was against the
decision of Pulak Enterprises, and such argument
could not have been made by the Petitioner.
(II) A single rate has been taken for calculating D3 and as
such there is no deviation from the direction given by
the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Pulak Enterprises
and the Board has not taken an average rate.
18. On this issue, we are of the view that it was never
the argument of the Petitioner-Appellant that deemed
supplies have to be excluded all together. A wrong framing of
question has led to an incorrect answer. Reference in this
regard is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G.
Thirugnanasambandam, reported in(2005) 3 SCC 241
wherein it was held that –
“34. This decision also has no application to the facts of the present
case. In the instant case, the Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court misdirected themselves in law insofar
as they failed to pose unto themselves correct questions. It is
now well settled that a quasi-judicial authority must pose unto
itself a correct question so as to arrive at a correct finding of
fact. A wrong question posed leads to a wrong answer.”
As a matter of fact; the Petitioner’s casethroughout was
that a single rate has to be taken for the purchases from DVC
i.e. the rate at which BSEB purchases electricity from DVC.
A specific ground in this regard has been raised as
44
ground ‘XX’ of the LPA. In fact, reading of para 51 to 55 of the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pulak Enterprises
(Annexure-11) would show that it was never the case of any of
the consumers that deemed supply to TISCO by DVC was to
be excluded altogether.
Further, the argument that BSEB has taken a single
rate for D3 is also not born out from the Respondents’ own
records. A perusal to Annexure-D of the Counter Affidavit filed
in the Writ proceedings would show that BSEB has taken the
weighted average of sale by DVC to BSEB & TISCO. In doing
so, they have taken into account two rates which was not as
per ratio laid down by Pulak Enterprises and as such was in
direct conflict with the judgment.
Further, the Petitioner had also tendered separately
Annexure-H to the Respondents’ Counter Affidavit to show
that DVC’s increase in tariff had only been recognized by
BSEB from 30.04.1997. Thus, in the year 1996-97 BSEB
ought to have calculated D3 at the rate by which it was
paying DVC irrespective of tariff rate.
Having regards to the above; the finding of the Writ
Court on this issue cannot survive.
19. On the Issue No.III of Rs. 100 Crores, it has been
contended by the appellants that the Board was supposed to
consider credit of Rs. 100 Crores as agreed by the coal
companies against the claim of BSEB towards slippage, short
supply and supply of stone etc., to consider while calculating
the rate of fuel surcharge for the year 1998-99. He further
made following submissions:
The High Court has at para 40,has dealt with issue of
accounting of Rs. 100 Crores paid by the Coal
Company to the Board. The Division Bench referred to
Affidavit of Board that “as against the total claim of Rs.
356.20 Crores, on account of loss due to grade slippage,
45
short supply of coal, supply of stones etc., the coal
companies have agreed to pay Rs. 100 Crores in full and
final settlement of the claim, but though such decision
was taken on 30.08.1998”, but the actual payment had
not been made till date. The Court further observed “it
was pointed out payment of the amount would be
relevant consideration while calculating the rate of fuel
surcharge for the year 1998-99 and not 1997-98”.
This issue was confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court at
para 63 and 64of its judgment; wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has given specific direction that actuals
will be worked out within 3 months from the date of
Judgment and adjustment of Rs. 100 Crores are to be
worked out accordingly.
It has been further submitted that against this
direction, the Board filed an I.A. Application before the
Hon’ble Apex Court and the Order of which is annexed
as Annexure-12; it is evident that time completion for
adjustment of Rs.100 Crores has been extended for a
period of four months from the date of the Order i.e.,
25.01.2010.
The Board thereafter issued an office Order at
Annexure-13,on 22.10.2010, that in terms of the
Judgment passed in Civil Appeal and also Civil I.A., the
Board has decided to make an adjustment in the rate of
fuel surcharge for the F.Y. 1998-99 by incorporating
amount of Rs. 100 Crores receivable from Coal India
Ltd. with regard to coal supplies including quality,
quantity, all types of claims and damages up to
31.03.1997. However, rider was added that such
adjustment was to be made effective as soon as the
amount of Rs. 100 Crores is received, although no such
direction was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
46
Ld. Sr. Counsel further contended that the Board
further played fraud upon its consumers by issuing one
Office Order dated 01.12.2010, (Annex-14) wherein it
revised the rate of fuel surcharge for the year 1998-99
from which existing rate of fuel surcharge of 164.83
paisa per unit was revised to 158.79 paisa per unit. It
was stated that the Board computed and modified the
rate of fuel surcharge for the F.Y. 1998-99 by making
adjustment of Rs. 100 Crores receivable from CIL and
the said modified rate and unpaid accrued amount
from them to the consumers shall be effective as soon
as Rs. 100 Crores is received from M/s. CIL.
The calculation was appended to such Office Order and
from the perusal of calculation given as per para (b) is
concerned, it would be evident that the Board had
taken only Rs. 23.22 Crores which is related to “Fuel
Related Loss” in the Chart.At column 4, it has been
stated that amount of Rs. 23.22 Crores only has been
taken which is benefit of fuel related loss to be passed
to the fuel surcharge leviable consumers from Rs. 100
Crores receivable from CIL. This was again contrary to
the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Board does not actually receive money from the
coal companies; rather a system of adjustment is
followed vis-à-vis coal supplied by the coal companies
and energy supplied by the Board.
The Board follows a mercantile system of
accounting and not cash system. In mercantile system,
since the amount become receivable, it becomes the
part of the accounts and therefore, the stand of the
Board that adjustment shall be given after the amount
is received goes to show the misleading attitude of the
Board.
47
He contended that it is a fact that Board will never
receive this amount directly from the coal companies
since only adjustment are being made in the books and
differential taken is being made on the basis of balance
outstanding.
Relying upon the above, Mr. Singh contended that:
(i) There was specific direction of the Supreme Court
giving benefit of Rs. 100 Crores, without waiting for
the money having been received or not.
(ii) Board on its own could not have reduced the benefit
of Rs. 100 Crores for the purpose of adjustment for
only Rs. 23.22 Crores which is against the specific
direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Ld. Sr. Counsel pointed out that the Impugned
Judgment was reserved after completion of hearing on
20.04.2015 and the Judgment was pronounced on
08.05.2015, but by then JSEB had already received a
sum of Rs. 100 Crores from CIL (as a successor of and
on behalf of BSEB) which was not disclosed by JSEB
during course of hearing.
This is evident from the Judgment passed by the Patna
High Court in the case of M/s. Pulak Enterprises
reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 2652 after remand
from the Supreme Court and the said Judgment is
dated 23
rd March 2015, wherein the Patna High Court
took cognizance of an Affidavit filed by BSEB wherein it
was stated “16. It is stated that since Rs. 100 Crores
paid by CCL is lying with JSEB, the Board has filed
Review Application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for
review of the Order”.
Therefore, from the above, it is evident that JSEB had
already received Rs. 100 Crores from CIL, even before
the hearing before the Ld. Single Judge had started,
48
but the JSEB did not apprise about the same to the
Court.
Therefore, immediately Board should be directed to
calculate benefit based on the entire 100 Crores it has
received and if the calculation on the basis of Rs. 23.22
Crores has been worked out from 164.83 per unit to
158.79 per unit, there is difference of about 6 paise,
then if the entire 100 Crores is taken into
consideration, the difference would be at least 25 paise
per unit.
This benefit has to be given to all the consumers which
will result a downward revision of the bills and
consequently deletion of the entire amount of Delayed
Payment s surcharge.
The Ld. Single Judge had dealt with this issue in the
Impugned Judgment at para 32 of the Judgment
wherein the Ld. Single Judge has held that because the
Circular has not been challenged in these writ
petitions, therefore the said grievance cannot be
entertained and the Court refused to adjudicate on the
said issue.
It has been submitted that when the direction of Rs.
100 Crores was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
then it may not have been necessary to challenge to
follow up Order and Appellant can show that the follow-
up Order was in contravention of the Supreme Court
Judgment. As a matter of fact, actions of the
Respondent Board, is absolutely contemptuous.
In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE , reported
in (2016) 3 SCC 643, wherein it was held that –
“29.Rules or regulations which are in the nature of
subordinate legislation which are ultra vires are
bound to be ignored by the courts when the
49
question of their enforcement arises and the
mere fact that there is no specific relief sought
for to strike down or declare them ultra vires
would not stand in the court's way of not
enforcing them. We also feel that since this is a
question of the very jurisdiction to levy interest
and is otherwise covered by a Constitution
Bench decision of this Court, it would be a
travesty of justice if we would not allow Shri
Aggarwal to make this submission”
A circular which is completely against the law declared
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would certainly be ultra
vires and hence the Ld. Single Judge ought to have
considered the submissions in this regard. The
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Shree
Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills was also specifically
followed by the Hon’bleDelhi High Court in the context
of an office order in Unaided Recognized Private
Schools v. DDA, (2020) 1 HCC (Del) 447.
Furthermore, the Circular itself stated that the benefit
of 100 Crores will be given when the money is actually
received. Till date, the Board has not given effect to
such circular by reducing the rates. Therefore, when
the Board has not even implemented the Circular, then
there stood no occasion to challenge it.
He lastly submits that even otherwise, in one of the
cases before the Ld. Single judge, i.e., M/s. Auto Profiles
Ltd., the said circular was categorically challenged.
20. In response to the same, it has been argued by the
Respondents that no relief or direction was given by the
Hon’ble Patna High Court in Pulak Enterprises regarding this
issue. Further, the ground that the Mercantile System of
Accounting is to be used was never argued by the Petitioners.
21. Thus, we see that the Respondents have practically did
not denied any of the contention of the appellants rather;
made simple objection that no relief or direction was given by
50
the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Pulak Enterprises regarding
this issue and the ground of Accountancy has been raised for
the first time.
The above submissions are also incorrect for the
reasons that since no specific direction was given by the
Patna High Court in Pulak Enterprises on this issue; the
consumers had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a
clear direction was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
para 64 of the Judgment that an adjustment of Rs. 100
Crores should be worked out within three months. Therefore,
a direction is certainly there. In fact, the Board had also
published an Office Order dated 22.10.2010 and 01.02.2010
for implementing of the Supreme Court direction.
Further, even assuming that Mercantile System of
Accounting cannot be taken into consideration, still the Board
has actually received Rs. 100 Crores and ought to have given
effect to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and re-
calculate rates of fuel surcharge.
It must also be noted that there was no response by
the Respondent as to the following issues –
(i) Actual receipt of Rs. 100 crores by JSEB.
(ii) Reducing benefit of Rs. 100 Crores to only Rs. 23
Crores (approx.) when there was no direction in this
regard.
22. On the Issue No. IV - Unconsumed units; Ld. Sr.
Counsel made following submissions:
Board has issued a circular dated 17.09.1999 (Annex-
3,to the writ petition) by which it has been decided to
levy fuel surcharge on unconsumed units on two
categories of consumers namely CS and LT. A
retrospective effect has also been given to this circular.
By issuance of this circular the respondents have
basically amended the formula of fuel surcharge. Since
the present petitioner was a High-Tension consumer, it
51
had nothing to do with the circular as it dealt with
Commercial Service consumers and Low-Tension
consumers. Nor did the Board place the circular before
the Patna High Court and subsequently there is no
finding or direction for the same either in the High
Court or in the Supreme Court’s judgment. The
Appellant has dealt with this issue in paragraph 90 to
92 of the Appeal.
After proper effect is given to the circular, the effect
would be lowering of rates of the fuel surcharge
because the denominator consists only of the unit sold
but if fuel surcharge is levied on unconsumed units,
then those units have to be added to the denominator.
An example would be if Rs. 100 is the cost of generation
and Rs. 100 is the cost of purchase and 100 units are
sold which would be worked out to Rs. 2 per unit, but if
unconsumed units, for example say 100 units, are also
added to the denominator then the cost of fuel
surcharge would work out to Rs. 1. i.e., Rs. 100 (cost of
generation) + Rs. 100 (cost of purchase) = Rs. 200
divided by 200 units sold.
The formula of fuel surcharge is clear, inasmuch as,
Denominator has to be the same number of units on
which the fuel surcharge is being levied. In the present
case, the Board has not considered the unconsumed
unit while arriving at the denominator, hence the Board
has to work out the rates of fuel surcharge by adding
the unconsumed unit in the denominator.
This issue was not raised before the Patna High Court
and consequently also not before the Supreme Court,
because at that time the consumers were not aware of
the existence of that circular, since it was an internal
circular. But however, before the Ld. Single Judge, this
issue was raised by the Petitioner / consumers. It was
52
contended that since numerator consisted of the units
purchased and units generated sold to fuel surcharge
paying consumers, therefore, unconsumed units on
which the Board is also levying fuel surcharge from the
category of commercial service consumers and LTIS
(Low Tension Industrial Services) also has to be added
to the denominator. This would result in increasing the
denominator and the moment the denominator
increases, the rate of fuel surcharge will automatically
decrease.
However, the Ld. Single Judge in the Impugned
judgment has held that the Petitioner at this stage is
prevented from raising issue on the principle of res
judicata and as such the Court was not inclined to
interfere this ground attack and accordingly the same
was rejected.
The approach of the Ld. Single Judge on this issue was
absolutely erroneous. The Hon’ble Single Judge fallen
into error, as the Petitioner was prevented to raise
ground of effect of unconsumed units on the principle
of res judicata when there was neither any arguments
made on this issue earlier. This issue also deserves to
be decided in favour of the consumers because, it is
directly co-related to the rate of fuel surcharge.
In this regard, reference is made by the Ld. Sr. Counsel
to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v.
State of U.P., reported in1989 Supp (1) SCC 504,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that –
“16. … At the same time it has to be remembered that every
technicality in the procedural law is not available as a
defence when a matter of grave public importance is
for consideration before the court. Even if it is said
that there was a final order, in a dispute of this type it
would be difficult to entertain the plea of res judicata.
As we have already pointed out when the order of 12-
3-1985, was made, no reference to the Forest
53
(Conservation) Act of 1980 had been done. We are of
the view that leaving the question open for
examination in future would lead to unnecessary
multiplicity of proceedings and would be against the
interests of society. It is meet and proper as also in
the interest of the parties that the entire question is
taken into account at this stage.”
The issue regarding rate of fuel surcharge is a far
reaching one as it impacts all the industrial (HT and LT)
and Commercial category of consumers and hence
merely on a technical plea of constructive res judicata,
this issue cannot be brushed aside.
23. In response to the aforesaid arguments, the
Respondent made following submissions:
(I) The Petitioner’s apprehension that unconsumed units
had not been taken into account was unfounded as the
rate of fuel surcharge actually took into account the
same.
(II) Secondly, it was argued that this contention of the
Petitioner regarding un-consumed units had never been
raised in the first round of litigation and thus cannot be
raised now.
24. In respect of the above, we are of the considered
opinion that the argument of the Board that un-consumed
units had been taken into account is absolutely incorrect.
Reference is made to Annexure-5 of the LPA in which the
Appellant-Petitioner has annexed calculations at Page-128,
129 and 130 (which are based on the Board’s own figures) to
show that unconsumed units had in fact not taken into
consideration.
Once such statement was made, onus lay on the
Respondents. It is now well settled principles of law that,
when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to
be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is
the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by
54
evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is
the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not
pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not
annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the
case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this
context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this
regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the
Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-
affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written
statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be
pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only
the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to
be pleaded and annexed to it.
In the case at hand, the appellant has given a
calculation at Page-128, 129 and 130; which are based on the
Board’s own figures to show that unconsumed units had in
fact not taken into consideration
Further, the Circular regarding taking into account of
unconsumed units was issued only on 14.09.1999 and thus;
consideration of unconsumed units on the denominator side
of the formula, prior to such date cannot arise at all.
It is also pertinent to mention here that, the issue of
unconsumed units was never raised in the first round of
litigation and hence would not operate as res-judicata in the
present proceedings. Further, it is trite law that the State
cannot harp on technicalities and defeat the legitimate claims
of the Petitioner. Reference is made to the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State
of Rajasthan, (1980) 1 SCC 599, wherein it was held that –
We hopefully expect that the Central Government
will not try to shirk its legal obligation by
resorting to any legal technicalities, for we
maintain that in a democratic society governed
by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do
what is fair and just to the citizen, and the State
should not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of
55
the citizen by adopting a legalistic attitude but
should do what, fairness and justice demand.
The Respondent Board ought to have addressed on this
issue on merits; rather than taking such technical pleas. It
has recently been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. BSK Realtors LLP, reported
in2024 SCC OnLine SC 1092 that res-judicata is in the
realm of procedural law which cannot be pressed as a defense
which public interest is involved (Para 25).
In the present case, the rate of fuel surcharge or any
enhancement or decrease thereof would affect all the
consumers in the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, this issue
would certainly affect the public interest. Therefore, a
technical plea of res-judicata ought not to have deterred on
Learned Single Judge in deciding this issue.
Moreover, as stated herein above; the Circular dated
14.09.1999 was an internal Circular, and the consumers
never had an opportunity to address the same in the first
round of litigation.
25. The next issue argued by the Appellants, before the Ld.
Single Judge was that the State was bifurcated as on
15.11.2000 and Jharkhand State Electricity Board came into
existence on 01.04.2001. Though Jharkhand State Electricity
Board adopted tariff of Bihar State Electricity Board till
31.12.2003, but the formula of fuel surcharge being based
upon generation and purchase and as well as sale of units
have to be worked out after bifurcation of the State and more
so, after 01.04.2001, when JSEB came into existence.
On the issue of bifurcation of State and its impact; Ld.
Sr. Counsel further contended that in terms of the formula,
the generating station of Baruni and Muzzafarpur and
purchases made by Bihar State Electricity Board ought to
have been deleted from the numerator and so far as
56
Jharkhand is concerned, and only inclusion in the numerator
should be that of Patratu Thermal Power Station and
purchase of electricity by Jharkhand State Electricity Board.
The denominator ought to have been only the sale of units of
the fuel surcharge paying consumers in the State of
Jharkhand and not in the entire State of Bihar.
This calculation in the formula will have resulted in
great decrease of the fuel surcharge as almost 70% of the
consumption of electricity of the unified State of Bihar was
after the bifurcation in the new State of Jharkhand.
This aspect of the matter were legal issues which have
not been considered by the writ Court, but in Para 36 of the
Impugned Judgment, the Court discarded the contention of
the Appellant consumers and wrongly observed that fuel
surcharge circulars are operative in the State of Jharkhand
before the date on which JSEB was created, ignoring the fact
that the formula ought to have changed from 01.04.2001 till
31.12.2003, as energy generated in the Power Stations
became only one instead of three, and also the purchase of
energy by JSEB only should have been taken for
consideration for calculations. Accordingly, the calculation of
the fuel surcharge had to be changed on and from
01.04.2001.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
since JSEB’s tariff only came into existence on 01.01.2004,
therefore, fuel surcharges ought to be continued till
31.12.2003.
27. In this regard, we are of the view that the JSEB had
already came into existence on 1.4.2001. The Books of
Accounts for both JSEB and BSEB were maintained
separately. Therefore, effect of bifurcation of the State must
be taken into consideration while calculating fuel surcharge
for consumers in the State of Jharkhand. The power
generated by the power plants in Bihar and the power
57
purchased from other sources by BSEB as well as the units
sold to consumers in Bihar could not have been taken into
consideration while calculating the rate of fuel surcharge in
the State of Jharkhand.
28. On the issue of “Delayed Payment Surcharge” it has
been submitted that after the Judgment was delivered, all
consumers were served with the bills based upon the
circulars issued after Judgment in the case of M/s. Pulak
Enterprises at Patna. However, almost all consumers had
challenged those circulars and interim Orders were passed in
favour of the consumers.
However, after the impugned judgment, the Board
raised balance amount of bills and levied a phenomenal
amount of interest which in almost all the cases was about
four times of the balance principal amount. All the consumers
had continued to make payment of fuel surcharge in terms of
the interim orders and as a matter of fact, after the
Judgment, the consumers also paid balance amount of
principal amount of fuel surcharge. However, despite there
being no direction in the Impugned Judgment, the Board
levied interest for almost 16-17 years each from the F.Y.
1996-97 upon all consumers.
When the bills were raised after the impugned
judgment, certain consumers approached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased
to direct that DPS shall not be levied and the consumers were
only required to the principal amount at this stage.
Learned senior counsel , lastly submitted that it is
evident that working of the fuel surcharge by the Board was
absolutely erroneous and was in gross contravention of the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and all the five
issues of the rates of fuel surcharge are to be answered in
favor of the Petitioner consumers.
58
It is evident that the bills issued after the impugned
judgment are unworkable and will have to be revised in light
of the fact that even one of the issues being decided in favor of
the consumers.
So far as the levy of delayed payment surcharge is
concerned, there are a series of Judgments in respect of the
issue that when electricity bills revised and found to be
erroneous then in that event Delayed Payment surcharge has
to be set aside. He relied upon the following judgments in this
regard –
(i) M/s. Hotel Woodlands v. JSEB, LPA No. 274 of 2004 – Para 5
(ii) M/s. Raj laxmi factories and Ceramic Works v. BSEB & Ors .,
(1999) 2 BLJR 508 – Paras 15 to 18
(iii) M/s. Gaya Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. BSEB, (1995) 2 PLJR
715 – Paras 9 and 10
(iv) M/s. Incore Metal ndCmement (P) Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand,
WP(C) 6587 of 2009 – Paras 12 to 14
(v) ManvinderNarain Agarwal v. BSEB &Ors., (2002) 3 PLJR 510 –
Para 10
(vi) Subodh Kumar Poddar v. BSEB &Ors ., (2002) 3 PLJR 532 –
Paras 2, 3 and 9
(vii) Kusumam Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. KSEB &Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 213 –
Para 45
On the strength of the above referred judgments and
the factual background of this case, Ld. Sr. Counsel
contended that the fact that bills have to be revised is evident
from BSEB ‘s own Circular dated 01.12.2010 (Annexure-13
dated 22.10.2010, Annexure-14 dated 01.12.2010) wherein
BSEB has stated that benefit of Rs. 100 Crores will be given
to the consumers, once the amount is received from Coal
Companies which would result in an alleged reduction of 6.04
P/KWh in the rates of fuel surcharge for the year 1998-99.
It has been further submitted that even ignoring the
fact that BSEB’s Circulars only gave benefit of reduction of
Rs. 23.22 crores out of Rs. 100 crores, then also as per their
59
own admission, bills ought to have been revised by reducing
6.04 P/KWh for the year 1998-99.
Hence refund has to be done in any event. Once the
revision is done, the question of DPS does not arise. In fact, at
the time of raising of the bill after Impugned Order 2015,
JSEB has already received Rs. 100 Crores and should have
reduced rate for the year 1998-99 and thus no DPS ought to
have levied at all.
29. On this last issue with respect to D.P.S., the Board
contended that it would be equitable for D.P.S. to be levied as
Board was deprived of fuel surcharge during the disposal of
the Writ petition. Reference was also made to the Judgment
rendered in (2003) 8 SCC 648.
30. In this regard, we are of the view that Board was never
deprived of fuel surcharge. The consumers kept paying at old
rate as per direction of this Court. Moreover, in the impugned
judgment, there was no direction that bills should be raised
along with DPS.
Further, the decision relied on by the Respondents is
also inaccurate as this would not be a case where there is no
change in the rate of fuel surcharge calculated by the Board.
Only if there was any interference / no reduction in the
calculation of fuel surcharge made by the Board, it would be
justified in levying D.P.S. However, as per the Board’s own
case, the benefit of Rs. 100 Crores has to be given which
would result in downward revision of fuel surcharge.
Further, from discussions made hereinabove, it can be
seen that calculation of fuel surcharge is totally inaccurate;
accordingly, we hold that the same needs to be revised. Once
the rates are revised, the original bill will be deemed to be
incorrect and there can be no question of levy of interest/DPS
thereupon.
31. Hence, we deem it proper to allow the present batch of
appeals. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the writ
60
court is quashed. Consequently, all the bills which has been
impugned in the respective writ applications, are hereby,
quashed.
It is ordered that the Bills is to be rework out and the
rates of Fuel Surcharge be revised strictly in the line of what
has been held by the Patna High Court and the Hon’ble Apex
Court and also the finding given by us hereinabove on each
and every issue; keeping in mind the fact of Bifurcation of
Boards i.e. BSEB and JSEB, amount of Rs.100 Crore received
from coal Company and the observation given by us on DPS.
32. For making the revised calculations, we hereby appoint
three men committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitabh
Kumar Gupta (Retd.), Jharkhand High Court along with two
chartered accountants to be nominated by the Chairman of
the committee from the names given by both the parties i.e.
Board and the Consumers; to examine the calculations.
The committee after coming to the conclusion shall
send the calculation to the Board which shall issue fresh Bills
to the Consumers for its payment.
The professional fees of the Committee shall be decided
by its Chairman and the same will be borne by the appellants.
33. Consequently, all these appeals are disposed of in
the manner indicated herein above.
34. Pending I.A.s, in respective appeals, if any, are
also closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated:-31/08/2024
Amardeep/
AFR/
Legal Notes
Add a Note....