V.K.KHANNA, J. - (1.) These are five connected writ petitions raising similar questions of fact and law. Lcarned counsel for the petitioner in these writ petitions and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have raised common arguments in these writ petitions and thus they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Besides oral arguments, the petitioners in these cases have also submitted written arguments twice. The last written argument was submitted by the petitioners on 10/07/1991. The contentions raised in the written arguments have also been taken into account while disposing of these writ petitions.
(2.) All the petitioners are running various industries and for running their industries, are taking the electrical energy under written agreements from the respondents. The U.P. State Electricity Board, by different notifications issued from time to time u/S. 49(l) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 imposed additional charges described as "coal variation adjustment", "Fuel Gas variation Adjustment" and "fuel Surcharge". The validity of the aforesaid additional charges was challenged by filing writ petitions which were admitted and during the pendeney of the writ petitions different orders were passed which are contained in Annexures 1 to 18 to writ petition No. 2628 of 1986. Broadly speaking the nature of the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid writ petitions fell in two categories, viz. (i) disconnection of electric supply was staved subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes Bank Guarantee for the entire demand raised by the U.P. State Electricity Board and (ii) disconnection of electrical energy was stayed subject to the petitioner's depositing half of the impugned demand in cash and for the remaining half amount the petitioner was allowed to furnish Bank Guarantee. In respect o1 future demand of additional charges. The interim order was clarified by this court and the petitioner had to deposit half of the additions! charge in cash within the time stipulated in the demand bill and for the remaining half of the amount Bank Guarantee had been furnished within the time granted by this Court
(3.) According to the petitioner the conditions laid down in the interim order had been complied with. So far as the future demand is concerned, according to the petitioner himself, the U.P. State Electricity Board during the pendency of the writ petition issued bills for electricity charges in respect of which on each of the bills the Board had endorsed the following remark by means of a rubber stamp "The liability of surcharge on late payment on unpaid amount accrued, exists and shall be charged after decision of Court.";