FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIES OF NORTH EASTERN REGION Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters are similar and covered by the judgment reported in 1997 (I) GLT 387 (Kamrup Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. ASEB and ors.). As against that judgment a Writ Appeal being Writ Appeal No. WA CD 11867 95 was filed and on 8.12.95 a Division Bench of this Court rejected the prayer for stay of the impugned judgment. It is submitted that later on the Division Bench passed a stay order directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the surcharge. Be that as it may, that interim order for realisation of 50% of the surcharge cannot be deemed to be a preceedent or an authority for deciding this particular case. In the earlier judgment, indicated above, this Court discussed different decisions and came toThe finding that surcharge can be levied by the ASEB for delayed payment and it was further held that surcharge of 5% for delayed payment is neither arbitrary or it is illegal. It was further held that if the writ application challenging the levy of surcharge for delayed payment of bill, if any interim stay order is granted by the Court, like amount due on surcharge cannot be deemed to be due after, disposal of the case, that amount must be deemed due on the due time when the surcharges were levied.

(2.) Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the SLP before the Supreme Court in 15799, 15790,15791 and 15713 of 1994 the Supreme Court first ordered for realisation of 50% of the dues. But that is against the tariff. Subsequently as against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, there was an appeal before the Division Bench (This matter relates to enhancement of tariff) filed by the Board, earlier the enhancement of tariff was quashed by the learned Single Judge. In the appeal before the Division bench, the Division Bench quashed that judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the enhancement of tariff by the ASEB is legal and proper. As against that judgment there was a SLP before the Apex Court and that was rejected. So, that judgment does not help the petitioners. Mrs. Hazarika places reliance in (1996) 8 SCC 73 (Assam State Electricity Board Vs. Brahmaputra Steel (P) Ltd. and ors). There in the facts of that case, the Supreme Court passed an order that there would be no surcharge from 31.3.93 to 4.4.94. That order was passed by the Supreme Court in the facts of that particular case and the questions which arose for decision in those particular cases were not decided by the Court, but it has been decided by the Single Judge and that judgment still now holds the field.

(3.) Sri Saikia, learned counsel for the Respondents, in addition to the earlier judgment as cited above also places reliance in another decision reported in (1996)1 SCC 597 (Kerala State Electricity Board and anr. Vs United Film Exhibitors and ore.) wherein paragraph 25 the law has been laid down as follow :