TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this Writ Application the Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Jamshedpur (Respondent No.3) communicated to the Petitioner vide Memo No. 1517/ ESE, JSR : dated 8.9.1994 as contained at Annexure -9 to the Writ Application whereby and whereunder the representation filed vide Annexures -5 and 5/A have been rejected. The aforementioned representations were against the levy of power factor surcharge of Rs. 6,62,515.95 in the Energy Bill, dated 5.4.1993 and of Rs. 4,58,256.04 in the Energy Bill dated 5.4.1993 (as contained at Annexures 2 and 2/A respectively). Consequently, the Petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the aforementioned two Energy Bills, dated 5.4.1993 so far as they seek to levy power factor surcharge of Rs. 6,62,515.95 and Rs. 4,58,256.04 respectively. The Respondents have also made a prayer that a direction be issued commanding upon the Respondents to refund/adjust the aforementioned amounts, the total whereof being Rs. 11,20,771.99 together with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 23.4.1993 as per the Order of this court passed in an earlier writ application bearing No. C.W.J.C. No. 396 of 1994 (R) vide order dated 18.8.1994.
(2.) THE only points argued by Mr. Siren Poddar, learned counsel for the Petitioner are : (a) That since a period of six months has been granted under Clause 16.6 (f) of the 1991 Tariff (Annexure -1. to the Writ Application) and this Tariff having come into force w.e.f. 20.9.1991, the period of 6 (six) months would lapse on 19.3.1992 and therefore, any calculation of short fall in power factor below 0.85 during this period is impermissible so far as existing consumers are concerned; And (b) So far as new consumers are concerned, the short fall in power factor can be charged only after installation of Shunt Capacitor and not before such installation. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Annexures -2 and 2/A would show that the shortfall in power factor has been calculated for the intervening period Le. 10/91 to 1/92 which falls within the exempted period and, therefore, this could not have been done.
(3.) SO far as the rate of the power factor is concerned i.e. 0.85, this Court does not interfere with the same in view of the Judgment in the case of 'Bihar Chamber of Commerce and Another vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another' and other analogous cases reported in 1993 (1) PLJR Page 36.;