P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN,C.J. - (1.) THIS appeal, by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 196 of 2000(R), challenges the dismissal of the said writ petition by the learned Single Judge, The appellant entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board for a contract demand of 200 KVA for a high tension connection. By order dated 3.11.1998 the said request was accepted to. According to the appellant, it purchased the requisite furnace having a capacity of 500 kg. and installed the same in the factory premises. The appellant claims that it is a small scale industry engaged in casting works. In the year 1993, as per notification dated 23.6.1993, the tariffs were fixed by the Bihar State Electricity Board. The tariff made applicable to the appellant fell, in the category of High Tension Supply -I which is Item VII in the tariff notification. Thus, the load applied for the appellant was High Tension 200 KVA and the load sanctioned was also 200 KVA on H.T.S. -I Tariff.
(2.) THE Bihar State Electricity Board found that there was widespread pilferage of electricity and the consumption was not based on the connected load or the load applied for. Action was contemplated by the Board. At that stage a consensus was reached between the Board and the Bihar Steel Manufacturers Association. A separate tariff was agreed upon by the Board and the Association. The consensus, according to the appellant, relates to contract demand of 300 KVA and consumption for induction furnaces. Apart from contending that the said agreement is not binding on the appellant, the appellant being not a member of the Association, it also claims that the demand referred to is not in respect of a consumer like the appellant. The appellant approached this Court, when a notice was issued to the appellant calling upon it to enhance its contract demand from 200 KVA to 300 KVA and informing the appellant that the revised tariff at a higher rate would apply to the appellant. In the writ petition the appellant inter alia prayed for a declaration that the tariff contemplated by the Board was not applicable to the Industry of the petitioner since the industry of the petitioner was not a unit having an induction furnace, but it was only a casting unit and for quashing the demand made to the appellant to enhance the contract demand from 200 KVA to 300 KVA. The other point was based on non -notifying of the tariff and of a having lost its relevance. According to the appellant, the supply was being made to it by the Board based on a minimum guarantee agreement entered into by the parties. The agreement was originally for a term of three years from 4.1.1999 and thereafter it was to be renewed from year to year. Obviously, by this time, the three year period of the agreement has expired and there has been no consensus ad idem regarding the supply thereafter and it could not be presumed that the original agreement stood extended by another year in view of the controversy that had already arisen. But what is contended on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant could not be compelled to raise its contract demand from 200 KVA to 300 KVA. It is submitted that it is for the appellant to decide what should be the contract demand and the Board, once it decided to supply power, could only collect the tariff at the rates prescribed in the tariff order. According to the Board, 600 KVA of power is required for manufacture of 1 M.T. The new rates were adopted with a view to prevent theft. Though the appellant had applied for a contract load of 200 KVA and the Board had acceded to that request, scientific studies have shown that the contract load of 200 KVA was not sufficient for running an industry like that of the appellant and it was in that context that the appellant was asked to enhance the contract load or to raise the contract load to 300 KVA and now that the original period of the agreement of three years was over, it was open to the Board to take the stand that the supply would be made or resumed by the Board only if the appellant raises his contractual demand to 300 KVA. The Board also contended that the unit of the appellant makes ingots and it was a casting unit. In reply, the appellant sought to stick to its position that it could run the industry on a contract load of 200 KVA and there was no justification in asking it to raise the contract load to 300 KVA.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge noticed that the only question argued before him at the time of hearing was that the new tariff sought to be imposed on it was not applicable to the appellant -Unit. After considering the new tariff rates adopted in the year 1999 and published in the Gazette on 6.4.2000, the learned Single Judge observed 'admittedly, the petitioners have been using Induction Furnace through electricity with a capacity of one tonne and for such furnace a minimum of 600 KVA load is required for the purpose of heating the furnace. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners kept their contract demand for Induction Furnace below 500 KVA so that they may be able to get the benefits of industrial supply. According to new tariff therefore, petitioners' unit engaged in casting of automobile components by using Induction Furnace having capacity of one tonne, is liable to get the contract load of 600 KVA and pay charges according to tariff. I, therefore, hold that the impugned tariff is applicable to the petitioner -Unit.';