S .J.Mukhopadhaya, J. - (1.) In all the cases, some of the questions being common and there being common petitioner in two writ petitions, they were taken up for hearing together, but nobody appeared in CWJC. No. 3839 of 1993 (R) - Jamshedpur Cement Ltd. V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr..
(2.) IN CWJC No. 746 of 1992 (R), the petitioner Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the TISCO) has challenged the order dated 24th December, 1991 passed by the Chief Engineer, South Bihar Chotanagpur Electricity Board, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the General Manager, Ranchi), whereby and whereunder, he allowed part of the claim of petitioner made under Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement (hereinafter referred to as H.T. agreement) for reduction from the Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges (hereinafter referred to as the AMG charges) and Maximum Demand Charges (hereinafter referred to as the M. D. charges) in respect of the years 1977 -78; 78 -79 & 82 -83. The petitioner TISCO has also challenged the AMG Bills of the aforesaid years 1977 -78; 78 -79 & 82 -83. In CWJC No. 2574 of 1993 (R), the petitioner TISCO has challenged the order dated 17th August, 1993 passed by the General Manager, Ranchi. By the said order, the General Manager, Ranchi rejected the petitioner 'sclaim made under Clause 13 of H.T. agreement for proportionate reduction from the AMG charges and M.D. charges in respect of the years 1990 -91; 91 -92 & 92 -93. In this case, the petitioner has also challenged the AMG bill dated 21st April, 1993 for the years 1990 -91; 91 -92 & 92 -93.
(3.) IN both the aforesaid cases CWJC No. 946 of 1992 (R) and CWJC No. 2574 of 1993 (R), though the petitioner formally challenged Clause 15.2 of tariff, providing levy of delayed payment surcharge on outstanding bills, but at the time of hearing of the cases, this prayer was not pressed by the counsel for the petitioner.;