The tariff proposed by the Board for HTS I companysumers along with existing tariff is reproduced in Tables 5.28 and 5.29 of the 2004 Tariff Schedule which will clearly reflect that the aspect of minimum guarantee charges was duly companysidered by the SERC.
Ltd. and M s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog arrayed as respondent No.1 in each appeal and hereinafter referred to as the companysumers .
The JSEB, however, companytended that the HT agreement entered into with the companysumers still survived as the 2004 Tariff Schedule saves this Agreement.
The SERC after undertaking the necessary exercise, fixed the tariff of all categories.
The JSEB, however, companytinued to send the bills as per the Clause 4 c referred to in the agreement which were paid by the companysumers under protest.
These appeals were preferred by the appellant JSEB against the orders dated 17th February 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of that companyrt in the two Writ Petitions which were filed by M s. Laxmi Business Cement Co. Pvt.
In May 2010, Writ Petitions were filed by the companysumers for quashing of the energy bills on the ground that it had wrongly been raised as per Clause 4 c of the Agreement which had ceased to have any effect on the framing of 2004 Tariff Schedule by the SERC.
Since the Writ Petitions of the companysumers were allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is already upheld by the Division Bench, it is obvious that pleas raised by the JSEB have number found favour with the High Court.
The object clause of this Act reads as under An Act to companysolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures companyducive to development of electricity industry, promoting companypetition therein, protecting interest of companysumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, companystitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
The appellant in both the cases is Jharkhand State Electricity Board JSEB , which is aggrieved by the companymon judgment dated 5th July 2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in two appeals.
Leave granted.
K.SIKRI,J. Delay companydoned.
In the year 2003, Electricity Act was enacted.
To give a glimpse of the companytroversy involved, in the year 1994 HT Agreement was entered into between Bihar State Electricity Board predecessor in interest of JSEB and the companysumers which, inter alia, stipulated the tariff that was to be charged by the JSEB from the companysumers for supply of electricity to these companysumers by the JSEB.
These respondents had questioned the validity of the bills raised by the JSEB in those Writ Petitions, primarily on the ground that the bills were companytrary to and in excess of the tariff fixed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission hereinafter referred to as the SERC .
Their companytention was accepted by the learned Single Judge and the order of learned Single Judge is affirmed by the Division Bench as well.
In Clause 4 c of the Agreement there was a provision of Minimum Guarantee Charges.
