TATA YODOGAWA LIMITED Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.L. Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: -

(2.) THE fact, which emanates from the averments made in the writ application is that the petitioner (Tata Yodogawa Limited) is having a Roll Manufacturing Unit at Gamharia in the district of Saraikella, Kharsawan. The petitioner is involved in manufacturing of Rolls, for which Induction Furnaces are used merely in conjunction with other types of Furnaces for manufacturing the said Rolls and is also used as an intermediate process in the manufacturing of Rolls. The foundry of melting set up consists of Heat Treatment Furnaces, Mould Drying Ovens, Roll Casting Facilities. The Machine Shop comprises of several heavy duty machine tools like Lathes, Grinding Machines and Milling Machines. The petitioner company had acquired the technology for manufacturing of Rolls from Yodogawa Steel Works Ltd., Japan and the detailed equipments selections and facilities were done under the Foreign Technical Collaboration. The manufacturing of Rolls started in 1970 and the petitioner company claims to be a leading supplier of quality Rolls to all integrated steel plants and defence establishments in India and a sizeable production is also exported outside. Initially, the petitioner had entered into an agreement in the year 1968 with the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as BSEB for the sake of brevity) with the contract demand of 12500 KVA. A fresh agreement was entered into by the petitioner and BSEB on 1.4.1979 , wherein the Contract Demand was reduced from 12500 KVA to 10500 KVA. The BSEB with the approval of the State Government came out with a tariff as contained in Tariff Notification No. COM/TAR/1010/1993 -430 dated 21.06.1993, which covered within its ambit all categories of consumers and also laid down the terms and conditions for supply of electricity to its consumers and which is commonly referred to as 1993 Tariff. Dispute arose between certain members of the Bihar Steel Manufacturers Association, who were basically manufacturers of ingots in their Induction Furnace and since allegations were levelled with respect to large scale theft of electricity, First Information Reports were instituted against those consumers and the electricity lines were also disconnected by the Board. To resolve the dispute, the members of the Bihar Steel Manufacturers Association held a meeting with the authorities of the Electricity Board, at which a consensus was arrived at for framing of tariff of such category of consumers, who were basically members of the said Association and consequent thereupon, the Secretary of BSEB issued a letter dated 24.09.1999, introducing a New Tariff Schedule for HT Consumers having Induction Furnace and the consumers of Induction Furnaces came within the purview of New Tariff Schedule with effect from 1.9.1999. The New Tariff Schedule of 1999 with respect to Induction Furnaces came to be known as High Tension Specified Services (HTSS) and it was made applicable to all consumers who were having a contract demand of 300 KVA and more for Induction Furnaces and the casting units having Induction Furnace of melting capacity of 500 K.G. or below were excluded. The New Tariff Schedule of 1999 was published in the gazette on 6.4.2000. The BSEB had raised bills upon the petitioner on the basis of 1999 Induction Tariff for the period January and February -2000 and the bills as well as the applicability of Induction Tariff was the subject matter of a writ application being CWJC No. 852 of 2000 R. The writ application was finally decided by this Court on 2.5.2013, in which it was held as follows: -

(3.) PURSUANT to the judgment dated 2.5.2013, passed in CWJC No. 852 of 2000R, the Electrical Superintending Engineer issued a letter no. 1583 dated 10.06.2013, enclosing the rectified bills amounting to Rs.2720325445.72, which also included an amount of Rs.59284086.72 kept in abeyance raised against fuel surcharge for the periods 7/1993 to 08/1999. The petitioner had filed an application for review of the judgment dated 2.5.2013, passed in CWJC No. 852 of 2000 R, which was, however, dismissed on 17.07.2013 with an observation that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any such bill raised thereafter pursuant to the judgment in question that may be a fresh cause of action for the petitioner but cannot be a ground for seeking review. Having been unsuccessful in the matter of review of the order dated 2.5.2013, passed in CWJC No. 852 of 2000 R, the petitioner has sought to challenge the bills raised vide letter dated 10.06.2013 in the present writ application.