S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS review application has been preferred by the petitioner, M/s. Raj Ceramics, Ranchi against the judgment dated 23rd August, 2002 passed in L.P.A. No. 97 of 2000 (R), whereby and whereunder, the Division Bench while affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, rejected the letters patent appeal.
(2.) THE petitioner, a High Tension Insulation Service Consumer (H.T.I.S. for short) preferred writ petition, CWJC No. 2945 of 1998 (R) for direction on the State Electricity Board to exempt it from payment of Annual Minimum Garantee (A.M.G. for short) charges for a period of five years w.e.f. 15th March, 1994. Further prayer was made to refund/adjust the amount of the A.M.G. charges already paid by petitioner since 15th March, 1994 and to quash the A.M.G. bills for the period 1994 -95. 1995 -96 and 1997 -98. Subsequently, by an amendment petition, it also prayed to quash an order dated 28th January, 2000 and a portion of the bill for the month of January, 2000. The writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 16th March, 2000 on the ground of delay, the petitioner having not raised any claim of exemption from payment of A.M.G. charges during the period 1994 to 1998 and paid the A.M.G. charges without any objection. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Court in M.K. Refractories v. BSEB and Ors., (CWJC No. 1559 of 1999 (R)). The aforesaid judgment of learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench, vide judgment dated 23rd August, 2002 in L.P.A. No. 97 of 2000 (R), out of which the present review application arises. In this case the counsel for the petitioner failed to show any error of record to doubt the legality of the judgment. In fact no case for review has been made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, reiterated the submissions as were made before the Division Bench, as if he was arguing an appeal before the same Division Bench, which is not permissible. It was submitted that the judgment of M/s. M.K. Refractories (CWJC No; 1559/ 99), disposed of on 6th August, 1999, relied by the learned Single Judge practically stands covered by Supreme Courts decision in Industries v. BSEB, in Civil Appeal No. 2247 of 2001, disposed of on 21st March, 2001. [See 2001 (2) JCR 318 (SC)1. It was also submitted that the appellate Court failed to notice the Supreme Courts decision aforesaid in M/s. K.D. Industries (supra). Lastly it was submitted that the petitioner -Industry being entitled for benefit of exemption on its expansion it can claim the benefit only on receipt of certificate of exemption which was issued by Respondents in the month of May, 1998. It was also submitted that in the impugned judgment, it has been wrongly shown as the petitioner a L.T.I.S. consumer, though it is a H.T.I.S. consumer.
(3.) I may mention that there are certain typographical error occurred in the judgment dated 23rd August, 2002. For example, the H.T.I.S. is the abbreviation of High Tension Insulation Service, whereas L.T.I.S. is the abbreviation of Low Tension Insulation Service. In the judgment, it has been wrongly typed as High Tension insulation Scheme and Low Tension Insulation Scheme, which are to be read accordingly However, it makes no difference so far as conclusion and finding are concerned. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit of typographical error for the purpose of review of the judgment, in question.;