- (1.) The petitioner, a company incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act set up its unit in the year 2002. It got electric connection from the Jharkhand State Electricity Board for a contract demand of 100 KVA and an agreement to that effect was executed on 20.11.2002 wherein purpose for supply was mentioned as 'wire drawing'.
(2.) On 2.6.2003 the contract demand of the company was enhanced to 300 KVA and hence, agreement was arrived at wherein the purpose was mentioned as "Wire Drawing" and Re- Rolling Mill. The Tariff Schedule which was made applicable was mentioned as HTS-I and accordingly, bills were being raised which were raised till December, 2003. From January bills were being raised under 2004 Tariff Schedule and the payments were made. In February, the contract demand was enhanced from 400 KVA to 2800 KVA and subsequently upto 3400 KVA. Accordingly agreement was executed wherein purpose was shown as 'Re- rolling and Melting of Iron'. The tariff schedule which was applicable was mentioned as HTSS (Induction Furness). Accordingly, bill on being raised under 2004 tariff were being paid. Again in June, 2010 when the contract demand of the company was enhanced to 3800 KVA, an agreement was executed wherein tariff schedule applicable was mentioned as HTSS (Induction Furnace). Accordingly, bills were being raised under 2010 tariff. In the month of October, 2010, the petitioner was served with a notice issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer intimating therein that the petitioner's unit never falls within HTSS tariff category rather falls within the ambit of HTS category. In January it was informed that the company needs to take two separate connection one under HTS-II tariff category and other under HTSS tariff category, failing which the Board will be charging bills under HTS-II tariff category which according to the petitioner was quite illegal. It is also the case that on getting the said notice, the petitioner was contemplating to agitate the issue but in the meantime, the petitioner was served with bill for the month of March, 2011 which had been raised under HTS tariff category and that necessitated filing of this writ application for quashing of the energy bill of March, 2011 and also for quashing the letter dated 9.3.2011 issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Deoghar whereby directions were issued to the petitioner to install a separate meter for its Re-rolling Mill in spite of the fact that point of supply is single which as per agreement is for Re-rolling and Melting of Steel.
(3.) Mr.Mitttal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the inception of the factory, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Board on four different points of time but at all occasions, the point of supply has been mentioned as single and therefore, any directive issued by the authority of the Board to have separate connection for both the units would be contrary to the agreement and also in derogation of clause 9.3 of the Supply Code Regulation and that agreement entered into between the parties does postulate of charging the energy bill as HTSS tariff and therefore, officer of the Board does not have any authority to charge electric bill unilaterally under HTS tariff.;