Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) THE facts and points of law arose in these writ petitions, filed by M/s Bimaldeep Steel Pvt. Ltd. are more or less similar, thus, both the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of this order.
(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 3517 of 2010, petitioner has prayed for quashing the supplementary bill dated 17.06.2010 (Annexure -4), whereby and where under, petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,31,18,298/ - for the Month of April 2009 to May 2010. In the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner further prayed for quashing the notice dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure -12), whereby and where under petitioner was directed to pay supplementary bill as contained in Annexure -4 within 15 days, otherwise his electrical service line will be disconnected. In Writ Petition No. 3881 of 2010, petitioner has prayed for quashing the Inspection Report dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure -4), whereby and where under, the crucible capacity of petitioner's furnace has been determined. The petitioner further prayed for quashing the letter dated 17.05.2010, whereby the respondent -authority had decided to accord sanction of 11000 KVA load to the petitioner based upon the inspection carried on 19.03.2009. The petitioner further prayed for a direction upon the respondents commanding them not to pressurise petitioner to enhance its contract demand from 7000 to of 11000 KVA. Petitioner further prayed that a declaration be made in terms of Tariff Schedule of 2010 that measurement of crucible capacity is not relevant to determine the demand load in the factory premises of the petitioner.
(3.) SANS unnecessary particulars, the fact of the case is that, petitioner is a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act and it established a Sponge Iron Plant in the Adityapur Industrial Area, Jamshedpur. It appears that initially petitioner took H.T.S. Electric connection from the then Jharkhand State Electricity Board (in short JSEB) having contract demand of 150 KVA. The electric connection energised from 13.03.2004. It is further stated that on the aforesaid date, 2004 Tariff of JSEB enforced. It is further stated that the petitioner received bill on the basis of 2004 Tariff and it paid the bill accordingly. It is further stated that in 2004 Tariff, certain provisions of 1993 Tariff remain as it is by virtue of Clause 1.4 of the Terms and Conditions of the 2004 Tariff. It is further stated that Clause 16.5 of the 1993 Tariff provides that: "Surcharge for exceeding the contract demand: - If during any month in a financial year the actual maximum demand of a consumer exceeds 110 per cent of the contract demand then the highest demand so recorded shall be treated as the contract demand for that financial year and the minimum base charges both in respect of maximum demand and energy charge shall be payable on that basis.";