CHOTANAGPUR SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL AREA, KOKAR, RANCHI THROUGH ITS CURRENT PRESIDENT SRI BIKASH KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI K.P. SINGH RESIDENT OF LAKE AVENUE, KANKE ROAD, P.S GONDA, DISTRICT RANCHI Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ENGINEERS BHAWAN, H.E.C, DHURWA, RANCHI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 29th Oct., 2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 644 of 2000(R), whereby the learned Single Judge has relegated the original petitioners to approach the Chairman of the Electricity Board. Challenge in the said writ petition was to a circular, issued by the Respondent-Board dated 14th Sept. 1999 (Annexure-6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), which tentamount to amendment in the tariff of 1993. Second ground is that the said circular also discriminate between the varieties of consumers. Third ground for challenging the said circular, which has been issued on 14th Sept., 1999, is that the same has been given retrospective effect from Ist July, 1993. On these three grounds, the circular dated 14th Sept., 1999 was under challenge. Initially this very writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27th March, 2000 (Annexure-10 to the memo of this L.P.A.) against which Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A No. 155 of 2000(R) was preferred by these appellants, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.5.2000 (Annexure 11 to the memo of L.P.A.). Thereafter, Civil Review No. 47 of 2000(R) was preferred by these appellants, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28th June, 2000 (Annexure 12 to the memo of L.P.A.), which was further challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition, which was admitted and was converted into Civil Appeal No. 3370 of 2001, which was decided by Honourable the Supreme Court vide order dated 27th April, 2001 and the matter was remanded and therefore, again the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 644 of 2000 (R) was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29th Oct., 2004 and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for Appellants :

(2.) Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the writ petition has been preferred for the period running from 1st July,1993 to 31st July,2002 which is governed by the tariff of the year 1993, more particularly, clause 16.10.1 thereof. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the connected load was 24 H.P and minimum monthly consumption is 70 KWH per BHP per month and thus minimum guarantee consumption was 1680 for appellant no.2 because connected load was 24 HP. This fact will vary from consumer to consumer or member to member of this appellant no.1. One of the bills, issued in favour of appellant no.2, is annexed as Annexure-4 to the memo of this L.P.A. Consumption is sometime lesser than the minimum guarantee and, therefore, for rest of the units, as per tariff, the electricity charges are to be paid, but, not the fuel surcharge, because fuel surcharge is levied only for the energy, consumed or sold. By virtue of the Circular dated 14th Sept., 1999 the respondents have amended the tariff, which can be done only by publication in the official gazette whereas the circular has never been published in the official gazette. Secondly, the tariff is applicable to the commercial services categories, (CS categories) LT Industrial Service, HT Service, EHT Service and Railway Traction Service, looking to Clause 16.10 of the tariff, 1993 whereas the circular, which was challenged in the writ petition dated 14th Sept., 1999, was made applicable only to CS categories and LT Industrial Services, excluding its applicability to HT Service, EHT service and Railway Traction Service, which is discriminatory in nature and lastly, it is contended that the said circular dated 14th Sept., 1999 has been made operative or effective with retrospective effect i.e. from Ist July, 1993.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants has relied upon several decisions which are as under:-