Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) SINCE in both the cases, similar question of law and facts involved, thus, are heard together and disposed of by this order. Brief facts of W.P.(C) No. 1316 of 2011 Petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No. 553 dated 26.2.2011 issued by Electrical Executive Engineer (C&R), whereby and whereunder petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 12 lacs towards 50% Minimum Monthly Charges (M.M.C.), because petitioner failed to take electric supply, within the time stipulated in the sanctioned order. Petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and applied for electrical connection for running its industry. It appears that after processing the application of the petitioner, General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Singbhum Electric Supply Area of Jharkhand State Electricity Board (respondent No. 2) issued sanctioned order on 13.8.2009 and asked the petitioner to fulfill certain conditions for receiving electric supply. It appears that as per Clause -2 of the sanctioned order, the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jamshedpur, vide letter No. 1781 dated 13.08.2009, asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 14,40,000/ - towards the security deposit. After receiving aforesaid letter, petitioner requested the Superintending Engineer for fixing 12 easy installments for payment of security deposit. As requested by the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer forwarded the letter to the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer with his recommendation for fixing 08 installments for payment of security deposit. Thereafter, vide letter No. 2099 dated 13.8.2009, the General Manager -Cum -Chief Engineer fixed the installments and asked the petitioner to pay the security money in eight installments. It is not in dispute that after fixation of installments, petitioner paid the security money. It appears that as per the condition stipulated in the sanctioned order, the petitioner received estimate for paying the different charges on 26.08.2009 from the office of the Electrical Inspector, Jharkhand. Thereafter, the petitioner paid aforesaid charges. Then, petitioner requested the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer (respondent No. 2) vide letter dated 09.9.2009 (Annexure -7) for supply of electricity as all the terms and conditions stipulated in the sanctioned order had been completed. It is relevant to mention that the aforesaid request was made by the petitioner within one month from the date of issuance of sanctioned letter, which is within the period stipulated in the sanctioned order. However, it appears that the respondent -JSEB instead of supplying electricity had appointed a Committee for measurement of Crucible of induction furnace for determining the demand load in the petitioner's premises. It appears that because of aforesaid reason, there is delay in starting of supply of electricity in the premises of the petitioner. It is relevant to mention that the supply of electricity in the petitioner's premises started from 5.5.2010. It is worth mentioning that the Electricity Board has not disputed aforesaid facts in its counter affidavit. It appears that after starting of the supply of electricity, suddenly, Electricity Board issued a bill vide letter No. 553 dated 26.2.2011 and asked the petitioner to pay Rs. 12 lacs towards 50% Minimum Monthly Charge. The aforesaid bill impugned in this case. Brief facts of W.P.(C) No. 1461 of 2011 Petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No. 554 dated 26.2.2011 issued by Electrical Executive Engineer (C&R), whereby and whereunder petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 20 lacs towards 50% Minimum Monthly Charges (M.M.C.), for failing to take electric supply within the time stipulated in the sanctioned order. Petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and applied for electrical connection for running its factory. It appears that after processing the application of petitioner the respondent No. 2 issued sanction order on 05.02.2005 with condition. As per the terms and conditions of sanctioned order, the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jamshedpur asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15 lacs towards security charge. It appears that petitioner requested the respondent -Electricity Board for extension of period of validity of load sanctioned order, which has been allowed vide letter dated 03.02.2006. Thereafter, petitioner deposited the aforesaid security amount and electrical supply in the premises of petitioner started on 15.12.2006. Suddenly, petitioner received letter No. 554 dated 26.2.2011(Annexure -5), after five years of starting of electricity supply, for paying Rs. 20 lacs towards 50% Minimum Monthly Charges, because petitioner has failed to take electrical supply within the time stipulated in the sanctioned order.
(2.) IT is submitted by Sri N.K. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners, in both the cases, that as per Section 45 of the Electricity Act read with Clause 3 and 17 of the Electrical Supply Code Regulation, 2005, the Board can charge only such amounts which were prescribed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission. He further submits that there is no provision in the tariff of 2004 -05, which empowers the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to levy 50% Minimum Monthly Charges if the consumer fails to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the sanctioned order within the time stipulated. Accordingly, it is submitted that the aforesaid levy of 50% Minimum Monthly Charges is illegal, therefore, cannot be sustained. Sri Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent -Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, submits that the Board has levied the aforesaid charges on the basis of Clause 1(b) of the agreement (Annexure -A to the counter affidavit). He submits that since the petitioner has signed the aforesaid agreement, therefore, he is bound by the same. Accordingly, he submits that there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the relevant laws and facts of the case. Section 45 (1&2) of the Electricity Act runs as follows: - - "45. Power to recover charges. -(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the prices to be charged by a distribution licensee for the supply of electricity by him in pursuance of section 43 shall be in accordance with such tariffs fixed from time to time and conditions of his licence. (2) The charges for electricity supplied by a distribution licensee shall be - (a) fixed in accordance with the methods and the principles as may be specified by the concerned State Commission; (b) published in such manner so as to give adequate publicity for such charges and prices." From reading of Section 45(2) of the Electricity Act, it is manifestly clear that a licensee (JSEB) can charge only such amounts which were fixed by the State Commission. It is relevant to mention that the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission has issued Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2005 and its Clause 3.2.1, 3.2.3. and 17 read as follows: - - "3.2 Cost of Service Connection/Extension/Upgradation 3.2.1. The licensee shall be authorized to recover from the applicant all expenses reasonably incurred in laying service line from the distribution mains to the point of supply based on the schedule of charges approved by the Commission as per Clause 17 of these Regulations. 3.2.3 Where the licensee permits the applicant to carry out works of laying service line and/or dedicated distribution facilities for the power supply requisitioned by him, the licensee shall not be entitled to recover expenses relating to such portion of work so carried out by the applicant. Provided how ever that the licensee shall be entitled to recover from the applicant, supervision charges as per schedule of charges approved by the Commission in accordance with Clause 17 of these Regulations, not exceeding 15 percent of the labour cost that would have been incurred by licensee in carrying out such work. Provided further that the applicant shall have to get the works carried out by licensed electrical contactor as per the estimate and lay -out approved by the licensee. The material purchased by the applicant in such cases should conform to relevant BIS specification or its equivalent and should bear its mark where applicable. The licensee may ask for documentary evidence to verify the quality of material. The consumer should get the work done within time frame provided in these Regulations failing which the licensee may on giving fifteen days notice treat this application for supply as cancelled. 17.1 Every Distribution licensee including the deemed licensee shall within three (3) months from the date of notification of these regulations or within three (3) months of the grant of licensee, which ever is later, file with the Commission for approval, a Schedule of Charges for matters contained in these Regulations and for such other matters required by the Distribution Licensee to fulfill his obligations to supply electricity to the consumers under the Act or rules and regulations there under. Provided that the Distribution licensee shall file the Schedule of Charges along with every application for determination of tariff under Section 64 of the Act together with such particular as Commission may require. 17.2 The Commission shall after examining the schedule of charges filed by the licensee and after considering the views of all interested parties issue an order granting its approval thereon with such modifications, alterations or such conditions as may be specified in that order. Provided that the schedule of charges approved by the Commission shall unless and otherwise amended or revoked, continue too be in force. 17.3 The existing Schedule of Charges of the Distribution Licensee shall continue to be in force until such time as the schedule of charges submitted by the Distribution Licensee under Clause 17.1 of these Regulations is approved by the Commission.";