S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J. - (1.) THE writ petition was preferred by petitioner, M/s. Menally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to raise separate bills on the basis of High Tension Tariff (H.T. for short) for its factory premises and on the basis of Commercial Service Tariff (C.S. for short) for its administrative premises and on the basis of Domestic Service Tariff (D.S. for short) for its 150 residential houses/ staff quarters, since despite repeated request to raise separate bills, a common bill on the basis of H.T. Tariff is being raised for its factory premises, administrative buildings and residential houses/staff quarters which, according to petitioner, is against the provisions of the Tariff.
(2.) THE case of petitioner is that it entered into an agreement for supply of load at H.T. for a contract demand of 1000 KVA and its consumer number is K.D. 5. The electrical line is supplied to its factory premises as also in its administrative building and about 150 residential houses/staff quarters. There being one H.T. electric meter, the entire consumption is being recorded and the bill is being raised on the basis of H.T. Tariff. Further case of petitioner is that the petitioner is governed by the Tariff Schedule published in the Bihar Gazette (Extra) on June 23, 1993, commonly known as 1993 Tariff. Various rates have been provided in the 1993 Tariff. For electric supply to industrial consumer, it has made two categories, namely, Low Tension Industrial and Medium Power commonly known as LTIS and the 11 KVA or 6.6 K.V.H.T. commonly known as HTIS. The H.T. service is also divided in three parts on the basis of use of installation with minimum contract demand, the petitioner's factory having contract demand of 1000 KVA falls under the HTIS category. Under 1993 Tariff for use of electricity for domestic purpose, D.S. Tariff is applicable. There are three categories of D.S. Tariff, namely : - - (a) D.S. I for rural areas not covered by area indicated under D.S. II and for connected load not exceeding 2 KW; (b) D.S. II for urban areas covered by Notified Area Committee/Municipality/Municipal Corporation/District Town/Sub -Divisional Town/Block Headquarters/Industrial Area/ Contiguous Sub -Urban Area and for connected load and exceeding 4 KW; and (c) D.S. III for load exceeding 4 KW. For domestic service (D.S. connection), separate rate prescribed per unit for D.S. I, D.S. II and D.S. III which is much lower than the rate of the H.T. or L.T. connection. There is neither any minimum guarantee charge, nor fuel surcharge fixed for domestic service (D.S. consumers). The 1993 Tariff provides separate tariff for administrative building known as the Non Domestic Tariff for light, fan and power service which is also commonly known as C.S. Tariff. It is alleged that the petitioner though repeatedly and regularly requested the State Electricity Board to raise separate bills on the basis of commercial service tariff or non -domestic tariff for its administrative buildings and domestic service tariff for its residential houses/staff quarters but no action has been taken by the Board. The petitioner made such request recently by letter dated 24th November, 2000 to the Electrical Executive Engineer,Electric Supply Division, Nirsa but even thereafter bills have been raised on H.T. connection. The factory of the petitioner stated to have no sufficient work order so it did not require contract demand of 1000 KVA which has been informed to the Electrical Superintending Engineer on 3rd April, 2001 with request to reduce its load from 1000 KVA to 800 KVA by way of notice as required under clause 9 -A of the agreement. It followed by petitioner's letter dated 30th April, 2001 to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Nirsa and letter of same date given to the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Dhanbad. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the individual residents of 150 residential quarters applies, for separate C.S. connection with the State Electricity Board, the petitioner will not oppose and will co -operate with the Electricity Board to give them direct connection. On 7th December, 2001, when the case was taken up, it was brought to the notice of the Court that similar problem is existing in other areas where Government employees and Court's employees ae residing like H.E.C. Colony, Dhuruwa and MECON Colony (Shyamali) both at Ranchi. Similar position existing in certain other places outside the capital, Ranchi.
(3.) IT is pertinent to mention that after creation of State of Jharkhand, Ranchi having made its capital, a number of employees of the State as also the employees of High Court were transferred and posted at Ranchi. There being shortage of Government quarters, the State Government made arrangement with H.E.C., Ranchi and MECON, Ranchi to lease out certain quarters in its favour for allotment of such quarters in favour of State Government and High Court employees. Accordingly, a number of Government employees have been allotted quarters in H.E.C. Colony, Dhuruwa and a number of High Court employees have been allotted quarters in MECON Colony (Shyamali) at Ranchi. This fact having been brought to the notice of the Court, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Secretary, Energy Department, Jharkhand and the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board wereasked vide order dated 7th December, 2001 to sit together to resolve the dispute. It was observed that if it was not resolved, the Court may determine the case on its merit. The Committee of aforesaid three officials held meeting on 8th January, 2001 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand and submitted a report. The aforesaid officials were also directed to assist the Court in the matter as the issue as may be determined will also be applicable in all similar cases such as employees residing in the quarters of H.E.C. and MECON. An intervention petition was also filed on behalf of Ranchi Zila Nagrik Unnayan Parishad, a Welfare Society of H.E.C. Limited which was impleaded as respondent No. 6. On the request of Mr. V.P. Singh, counsel for JSEB, HEC and MECON, Ranchi were also impleaded as party respondent Nos. 7 and 8 respectively. The Court heard the learned SC I for the State, Mr. V.P. Singh, counsel of the JSEB, Mr. R. Mukhopadhaya, counsel for the HEC, Mr. Biren Poddar, counsel for the MECON. Mr. A.K Sinha, counsel for the intervenor -respondent No. 6 as also the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand, Secretary, Energy Department, Jharkhand and the Chairman, J.S.E.B., Ranchi.;