AUTOMOBILE ANCILLIARY INDUSTRIES Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent -Board.

(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has mainly prayed for issuance of appropriate directions upon the respondents to delete the entire delayed payment surcharge being levied upon the petitioner every month to the extent of Rs. 18,000.00 to Rs. 19,000.00 on the arrears carried forward every month and also for quashing current monthly bill from the month of January 2004 to April 2004 both for its LT connection for the factory and CS connection for the office on the ground that those bills have been raised on the basis of 1993 tariff instead of 2004 tariff of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and further for a direction upon the respondents to revise entire bills from January 2004 to April 2004.

(3.) RESPONDENT -Board filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that the Board has been raising bills since January, 2004 as per the new tariff 2004. Board 'scase is that decision was taken to charge arrears or adjust against the charge and in view of the decision excess amount raised in the bills of the petitioner from January 2004 to April 2004 has been adjusted from July 2004 bill. Respondent 'scase is that as per the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 5512 a detailed chart of calculation alongwith a revised bill was served upon the petitioner. The calculation of demand and the chart was prepared in presence and with the cooperation of the petitioner upon his satisfaction, which will be evident from the letter -dated 17.7.2002 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -E to the counter affidavit. It is stated that a bill was again raised pursuant to the direction in LPA No. 523/2002 and was served upon the petitioner alongwith statement of account. Respondents further case is that revised bill from July, 1993 to December, 2002 was prepared in presence and with co -operation of the petitioner and a revised bill alongwith statement of accounts were provided for the period from August 1999 to February, 2003 in the light of the direction in LPA No. 523 of 2002. The delayed payment surcharge is levied on the unpaid amount and therefore there is no illegality in demanding the delayed payment surcharge.