IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9516 of 2001 1. ARC WELDING 440 VIDYOUT UPBHOKTA SANGH THROUGH THE GENERAL SECRETARY, BHAKTA RADHA MOHAN, S/O SRI JAGARNATH BHAGAT, OFFICE AT PAL MARKET SHEIKHPURA, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 14 2. M/S B.R.M. ENGINEERING WORKS THROUGH THE PROPRIETOR, BHAKTA RADHA MOHAN, S/O SHRI JAGAR NATH BHAGAT, PAL MARKET SHEIKHPURA, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 14 3. M/S AAKIRTI FABRICATORS THROUGH PROPRIETOR, M/S RANJAN SINGH, S/O LATE RAM JANAM SINGH, RUKUNPURA, BAILEY ROAD, P.S., DANAPUR, PATNA 4. UMESHWAR SINGH, S/O LATE RAM DEWAN SINGH, SAGUNA MORE, DANAPUR, PATNA 5. CHANKRIKA PANDIT, S/O SRI RAM NANDAN PANDIT, P.P. COLONY, NEAR P.S. PATLIPUTRA, PATNA 6. NAWAL KISHORE SINHA, S/O LATE BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGH, RUKUNPURA, BAILEY ROAD, DANAPUR, PATNA 7. AJAY KUMAR, S/O SRI RAM PRAVESH SINGH, RUKUNPURA, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 8. VIKASH KUMAR, S/O SRI BAIJ NATH CHOUDHARY, AKASHVANI ROAD, KHAJPURA, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA 9. MANOJ KUMAR SINHA, S/O BINDESHWAR KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA ANURAG HOSPITAL, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 10. BASANT SHARMA, S/O LATE JHAGRU MISTRI, RESIDENT O VILLAGE MANPURA, DANAPUR, PATNA 11. SHRI RICKY KATIAL, S/O LATE S. KATIYAL, AT VILLAGE GARBHU CHAK, P.O. B.V. COLLEGE, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, PATNA .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA - 2 - 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER-CUM-GENERAL MANAGER, PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA 1 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELESTRICAL) WEST DIVISION NEW CAPITAL CIRCLE, PESU, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA -1 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL SUPPLY) CAPITAL DIVISION, PESU, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA -1 6. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (REVENUE) NEW CAPITAL SUB DIVISION, PESU, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA 1 .. RESPONDENTS **** /13/ 25.01.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioners have challenged levying of fuel surcharge from 1993 to 31st May, 2001, at the minimum guarantee charge of 70 units per H.P. per month. Petitioners’ unit falls under the L.T.I.S. category. The learned counsel submits that the Board can not charge fuel surcharge on unconsumed units. In other words, if the petitioners’ unit have consumed less than the minimum guarantee charge unit of 70 units, then it can not charge fuel surcharge on the minimum guarantee charge based on 70 units. Learned Counsel in support of this submission has relied upon an order of the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission, in T.P. Case No. 1 of 2006, dated 29.11.2006. - 3 - He, further, states that the Jharkhand State Electricity Board has decided to withdraw levy of fuel surcharge on unconsumed units applicable to all categories of consumers. The aforesaid order of Jharkhand State Electricity Board is contained in Annexure 5. 3. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Board, submits that the Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. Vrs. Bihar 440 Volt Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh & Ors. [(1997) 11 S.C.C., 380] has held the validity of 1993. It has further been held that levy of fuel surcharge on fixed minimum guarantee charges on L.T.I.S. consumer is not invalid. Learned counsel submits that the Board is entitled to levy fuel surcharge on minimum guarantee basis even in respect of L.T.I.S. consumers. He submits that withdrawal of the levy of fuel surcharge by Jharkhand Electricity Board would not be of any relevance so far as Bihar State Electricity Board is concerned. 4. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Board that it would be entitled to charge fuel surcharge on the basis of minimum guarantee basis of 70 - 4 - units per month on L.T.I.S. consumers. The order of the Regulatory Commission, contained in Annexure 40, is in respect of 2003 Act whereas the instant case is of the period earlier to that. 5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of the writ application will not come in the way of petitioners in pursuing any other remedy available under the law. Cp:2/S.A. (Samrendra Pratap Singh, J.)