- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th August, 1993 passed by the Learned Trial judge dismissing the writ application. The Learned Trial judge dismissed the writ application, inter alia, by the following observations. "on a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it appears to me that the claim of the petitioners to the benefit of the judgement and order dated 19th December. 1986, cannot be extended to the petitioners at this stage. Although the said judgment or order is a final order for the purpose of the proceedings before the Learned Trial Judge, it cannot be said to have attained finality, in view of the pendency of the Appeal preferred by the Board. Furthermore, by virtue of the interim order passed on 22nd January, 1984. the separation of the said judgment and order has been stayed and the interim order passed on 30th September, 1986, by the Learned Trial Judge has been revived and is in force. Accordingly, the benefit that is now being enjoyed by the litigating mini-Steel Plants are the benefits available under the interim order on 30th September, 1986, to which the petitioners are not entitled in view of their acceptance of the conditions contained in the letter of 29th October, 1986, that the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefits of any interim order passed in the pending litigation. I am not inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. Kapoor that since the judgement and order dated 19th December, 1985. put an end to the proceedings before the Learned Single Judge, it must be held to be a final order for the purpose of the agreement arrival at between M/s. Hope India Limited and the West Bengal State electricity Board. While the; said judgement and order dated 19th december, 1986, may be said to be a final order for the purpose of ending the proceedings before the Learned Trial Court, in my view, it does not attain finality till such time as the Appeal preferred there form is finally disposed of. It is precisely for such' reason that interim order has been made by the Appeal Court pending the final disposal of the Appeal. The decision cited by Mr. Kapoor in the case of Mohanlal Maganlal thakkar (Supra) is not of any help to the petitioners in the facts of this case. The other decision cited by Mr. Kapoor on the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot also have application to the tacts' of this case, in view of the specific agreement entered into between M/ s. Hope (India) Limited and the West Bengal State Electricity Board. The appellant filed a writ application challenging the power of the state Electricity Board in demanding the maximum demand charge and ultimately the appellant applied before the respondent. State electricity Board for supply of more power for the purpose of extension of the factory and thereafter, the writ application being c. R No. 10258 (W) of 1982 filed by one Siddhartha Ferro Alloys Ltd. against the West Bengal State Electricity Board.
(2.) ON 30th September. 1985 Mr. Justice Suhas Chandra Sen passed an order in that case to the following extent: "the interim order dated the 7th day of July, 1983 is varied to the exgent that the petitioner will pay 50% (fifty percent) of the demand chaises with effect from 1st day of October. 1986, so far as the outstandings arrear is concerned, 50% (fifty percent) of the accumulated demand charges will also be paid by petitioner in instalments. This will be in addition to the current bills which the. petitioner will pay. The instalment will be of Rs. 2 (two) lacs a month. The first of such instalments will be paid by the 7th day of November, 1986 and the rest by the 7th day of every subsequent months. The payment will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the petitioners and the respondents. "
(3.) ULTIMATELY. Mr. Justice Suhas Chandra Sen made the rule absolute and restrained the Board from giving effect to the notice dated 4th november. 1992 demanding the maximum demand charge and directed the Board of modify and amend the maximum demand charges raised in the bills annexed to the petition and the subsequent bills that had been raised by the Board on the same manner and on the basis as was done on the earlier occasion when the maximum demand charges were reduced by the Board. The bone of contention was whether the Board could make the maximum demand charges when the Board was not in a position to maintain regular supply of energy because of shortfall of production in energy.;