- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs: a) For quashing/setting aside the order/judgment dated 06.06.2007 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand in case no. EOJ/02/2007 and the order/Judgment dated 22.11.2006 passed in case no. 43/2006 by Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (in short VUSN), Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB), Ranchi whereby the petitioner JSEB has been directed to revise the bills of the consumer respondent in relation to demand charges for the first 12 months i.e. from February, 2004 to January, 2005 on the basis of the actual consumption recorded in the meter. b) For a declaration from this Honble Court that the induction furnace consumers(covered under HTSS Tariff) of JSEB including the respondent are to be governed by the tariff notification dated 6.4.2000 published by Bihar Electricity Board and duly adopted by Jharkhand State Electricity Board, which comprehensively contains the terms and conditions of supply to the Induction Furnace Consumers and the new tariff order published by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short to be referred as JSERC) w.e.f. 01.1.2004 does not contain the said terms and conditions of supply to the said categories of consumers. c) For a further declaration that the demand charges in relation to induction furnace consumers including the respondent are to be levied by the petitioner on the basis of actual maximum demand recorded in the meter or 100% of the contract demand whichever is higher, from the very first day of commencement of supply.
(2.) THE facts in brief are set out as under: The petitioner Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as Board) is a deemed licensee cum transmission utility which is engaged in the business of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to its consumers within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. The respondent set up its factory at Kumardhubi, Dhanbad for sanctioned load of 2400 KVA and executed agreement with the Board and the power supply was energized on 03.02.2004 as mentioned in the agreement. The respondent consumer filed an application before the Court of Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (hereinafter referred to as Forum) for quashing the energy bills issued by Board for the period February, 2004 to January, 2005 on the ground that as per the terms of Clause 4(c) of the agreement for supply of electricity, the Board cannot charge more than the actual consumption recorded in the meter whereas the Board raised the energy bill at the rate of 100% of the contract demand which is illegal. It is also prayed to revise the bills from January, 2004 to January, 2005 on the actual KVA recorded for the first 12 months from the date of energisation from February, 2004 till January, 2005. The learned Forum vide its order dated 22.11.2006 while setting aside the impugned bills directed the Board to serve the revised bill to the petitioner for the aforesaid period on the basis of actual KVA recorded in the meter from February, 2004 to January, 2005 within a period of one month and adjust the excess payment made along with interest. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the Forum the petitioner Board filed an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, Ranchi, Jharkhand under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 challenging the aforesaid order dated 22.11.06 passed by the Forum. The learned Electricity Ombudsman after hearing the parties vide its impugned order dated 6.6.2007 held that there was no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed it and directed JSEB to comply with the order of the learned Forum. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Forum as well as Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand.
(3.) THE main contention raised by the learned Sr. Counsel Sri V.P. Singh, appearing for the petitioner Board is that the learned Ombudsman as well as the learned Forum have committed serious error in holding that the Induction Furnace Tariff Notification dated 6.4.2000 does not survive in view of the Tariff Order issued by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) w.e.f. 1.1.2004. The learned Sr. Counsel further submits that the learned Ombudsman and the Forum failed to appreciate that the Tariff Order 200304 published by the Commission contained a saving clause with respect to the terms and conditions of the supply including the Induction Furnace Consumer. He also submits that the consumer being Induction Furnace Unit has to be built as per the provision of Clause (5) of the Special Induction Furnace Tariff dated 6.4.2004 which clearly provide that the demand charges are to be levied on the basis of the actual maximum demand recorded in the meter or 100% of the contract demand whichever is higher. It is also submitted that in the Tariff Order, 2003 -04 there are provision for charging demand charges on the basis of minimum of 75% of the contract demand for general HT consumers and 100% of the contract demand for consumers having Induction Furnace. It has further been submitted that the letter by the Secretary to the Commission bearing no.3/BNP/617 JSERC, dated 19.12.2005 is a letter written by him in his individual capacity and the said letter cannot be termed as an order of the Commission. The said letter of the Secretary to the Commission cannot be said to be an order under Section 86 of the Electricity Act 2003. Moreover, the Secretary to the Commission is not an adjudicating officer within the meaning of Section 111 of the Act. The letter dated 19.12.2005 is in direct conflict and contrary to the Tariff Order 2003 -04 published by the Commission as it has been written in the said letter that the Board did not submit its tariff schedule dated 24.9.1999 and 7.5.2001. It is further submitted that paragraphs 3.6, 3.6.1. 3.6.2(Page 117 -118) clearly reveals that the said Tariff schedule were before the Commission while considering the Tariff order 2003 -04. It is further submitted that the rate/schedule of charges of H.T. and Induction furnace Consumers were left out to be decided in future, saying that those terms and conditions needed in -depth for study and analysis.;