SOURYA METALS LTD Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
LAWS(JHAR)-2005-4-33
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on April 08,2005

Sourya Metals Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether interest or delayed payment surcharge shall be charged and realized by the Electricity Board on account of late deposit of security amount.
(2.) THE petitioner is running an industrial unit at Pardih, Mango, Jamshedpur. The petitioner applied for electric connection and vide letter dated 15.5.2004 the Board sanctioned electricity connection under High Tension Tariff for Induction Furnace. In the sanction letter for 970 KVA, a sum of Rs. 29,44,920.00 was directed to be deposited by the petitioner as security amount. The petitioner vide application dated 14.5.2002 requested the General Manager -cum -Chief engineer, Singhbhum Area Electricity Board to fix instalment in connection with payment of security deposit. The General Manager vide letter dated 16.5.2002 granted 10 instalments for deposit of the aforesaid security amount. Petitioner paid first instalment of Rs. 2,94.492/ - on 23.4.2002 and entered into High Tension Agreement on 26.3.2003. The petitioner thereafter vide letter dated 17.3.2003 requested the General Manager -cum -Chief engineer to allow it to deposit the security amount in 12 instalments. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the respondent -Board allowed payment of the security amount in 12 instalments. The petitioner accordingly, deposited the entire security amount. However, by letter dated 18.12.2004, the respondent -Board asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,04,525/ - as delayed payment surcharge. As it was mentioned in the said letter that if the petitioner does not deposit the said amount the electricity line of the petitioner will be disconnected, the petitioner said to have deposited the entire security amount. The case of the respondent -Board in the counter -affidavit is that since the petitioner did not pay the security deposit in time framed, the delayed payment surcharge has been levied. It is contended that in terms of clause 15.3 (d) of the Tariff, the petitioner is liable to pay interest/delayed payment surcharge at the rate of 2% per month on the unpaid amount of security deposit.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent - Board disconnected the electric connection of the petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.