JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. USHA MARTIN LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, petitioner prays for quashing the judgment dated 31.3.2011, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand in Case No. EOJ/09/2010, whereby and whereunder learned Ombudsman dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner(JSEB) against the order dated 9.10.2010, passed by Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum (hereinafter referred as 'Forum') in Case No. 20 of 2006. Petitioner further prayed for quashing the order dated 09.10.2010, passed by the 'Forum' in Case No. 20 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, he allowed the application filed by the consumer -Usha Martin Limited (sole respondent) and held that the respondent should not be treated as running 'in arrears' on account of non -payment of fuel surcharge, and accordingly, further held that respondent is entitled to all rebates including load factor rebate as admissible under the provisions of new tariff 2003 -04.

(2.) The sole respondent -Usha Martin Limited is a Company registered under the Companies Act and it took power connection from the petitioner under High Tension Service (HTS) category and the tariff issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred as 'Commission') is applicable on it. It is stated that the 'Commission' had issued tariff order for the financial year 2003 -04 for HTS category consumer. As per the above tariff order, the HTS consumers are entitled to get two types of rebates (i) voltage rebate and (ii) load factor rebate. However, the load factor rebate is not available to such consumers, who are 'in arrears'. It is stated by the respondent that though the respondent had paid all the monthly energy bills within the due date, but in spite of that petitioner -Board refused to give load factor rebate to it on the pretext that the respondent was 'in arrears' so far it relates to fuel surcharge. The case of the respondent is that it filed a writ application in the High Court challenging the various Notifications by which the rates of fuel surcharge has been fixed. In the said writ application, the respondent -consumer further challenged the different bills served upon it by the petitioner -Board levying fuel surcharge. It appears from the order of the 'Forum" that in the aforesaid writ application an ad -interim order had been passed by the High Court in the following terms:

(3.) Accordingly, the respondent -consumer states that it had paid 50% bill amount of fuel surcharge of the year 2000 -2001 as per the direction of this Court and is also paying the fuel surcharge for the period April, 2001 onwards at the same rate. Thus, the respondent is not 'in arrears' of the fuel surcharge. But inspite of that, petitioner -JSEB is not giving the benefit of load factor rebate to the respondent as admissible under the tariff order 2003 -04.