M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent -Board.
(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has mainly prayed for issuance of appropriate directions upon the respondents to delete the entire delayed payment surcharge being levied upon the petitioner every month to the extent of Rs. 18,000.00 to Rs. 19,000.00 on the arrears carried forward every month and also for quashing current monthly bill from the month of January 2004 to April 2004 both for its LT connection for the factory and CS connection for the office on the ground that those bills have been raised on the basis of 1993 tariff instead of 2004 tariff of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and further for a direction upon the respondents to revise entire bills from January 2004 to April 2004. Petitioner 'scase is that since 1993 respondent -Board issued inflated bills and the same were challenged by filing various writ petitions. In CWJC No. 2474/93R and in CWJC No. 2981/1994R order of stay was passed by this Court and ultimately those cases were disposed of by ordering rectification in the bills. Since the direction of the Court was not complied with, the petitioner again filed writ petition being CWJC No. 3280/1995R with a prayer for refund/adjustment of late payment surcharge illegally realized. The said writ petition was also disposed of on 6.11.1996 with a direction to the respondents to calculate late payment surcharge, which were realized by the Board. The said direction was also not complied with by the petitioner and the petitioner again filed CWJC No. 1247/ 1995(R) which was disposed of on 13.1.1995 directing the respondents not to charge fixed charges for the petitioner. It was contended that on 26.8.1999 the electricity line of the petitioner was disconnected on the basis of inspection made by the Board. The petitioner again filed CWJC No. 2600/ 1999R, which was disposed of on 10.9.2002 with a direction to the respondent -Board to issue separate bill in respect of lighting load and the connected load. Petitioner 'sfurther case is that not a single direction was complied with by the respondent -Board inspite of several representation made by the petitioner to the respondents to revise the bills. According to the petitioner current charges for the month of May 2004 is only Rs. 8040.00 as, against that respondents raised bill for Rs. 11,11,641/ -. The entire amount of Rs. 11,00,000.00 and odd as nothing but is the amount to be set aside against various orders of this Court, inasmuch as this amount is delayed payment surcharge levied upon the petitioner.
(3.) RESPONDENT -Board filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that the Board has been raising bills since January, 2004 as per the new tariff 2004. Board 'scase is that decision was taken to charge arrears or adjust against the charge and in view of the decision excess amount raised in the bills of the petitioner from January 2004 to April 2004 has been adjusted from July 2004 bill. Respondent 'scase is that as per the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 5512 a detailed chart of calculation alongwith a revised bill was served upon the petitioner. The calculation of demand and the chart was prepared in presence and with the cooperation of the petitioner upon his satisfaction, which will be evident from the letter -dated 17.7.2002 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -E to the counter affidavit. It is stated that a bill was again raised pursuant to the direction in LPA No. 523/2002 and was served upon the petitioner alongwith statement of account. Respondents further case is that revised bill from July, 1993 to December, 2002 was prepared in presence and with co -operation of the petitioner and a revised bill alongwith statement of accounts were provided for the period from August 1999 to February, 2003 in the light of the direction in LPA No. 523 of 2002. The delayed payment surcharge is levied on the unpaid amount and therefore there is no illegality in demanding the delayed payment surcharge.;