IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14397 of 2009 USHA CHOUDHARY wife of Sri Ganesh Prasad Choudhary, Resident of Chandra Bhawan, Raja Bazar,P.S.Shashtri Nagar,Patna. Versus 1.THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. 2. The Finance Controller-1, B.S.E.B., Viduyat Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna. 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, P.E.S.U.,Patna. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, P.E.S.U.,Nutan Rajdhani Division,Patna. 5. The Assisstant Electrical Engineer, P.E.S.U.,Patna. 6. The Junior Electrical Engineer, P.E.S.U. ----------- For the petitioner: M/s.S.D.Sanjay & Alok Kumar Agrawal, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Vinay Kriti Singh, Advocate. 2 25.11.2009 The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the revised punitive bill raised on basis of clause 16.9A of 1993 Tariff of B.S.E.B.. The challenge is simple. The petitioner with reference to the said bill which is Annexure-7 points out that the fuel surcharge has been taken at three times the rate. He submits that in view of Judgment of this Court in the case of Raghvendra Singh and anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & ors. since reported in 2002 PLJR 1 as affirmed by the apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Lehru & ors. since reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 123 (SC) it has been clearly held that fuel surcharge cannot be charged as consumed units at the three times the rate under clause 16.9A of 1993 Tariff of B.S.E.B. Mr. Vinay Kriti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Board, submits that such fuel surcharge is sustainable. I have examined two decisions aforesaid. The merit of the two decisions is clear that while penal bill is raised at three times the rate chargeable the Courts have held that fuel surcharge cannot 2 be charged at three times as it is a compensational charge to recover extra cost. Thus, the fuel surcharge at Rs.1,23,713.07 cannot be sustained. This has to be reduced to the applicable punitive bill of Rs.16900.00 as multiplied by fuel surcharge Rs.2.4401.00 only. Thus, the amount would stand reduced to about Rs.41236.00. The bill would require correction accordingly there being no other dispute. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to respondent concerned to revise the aforesaid punitive bill. It would be open to the Board to take action as appropriate against its officers as per report submitted by the Financial Controller, respondent no.2, being its report dated 4.1.2003 where he has found the officials of the Board is responsible for unnecessary harassment caused delay. The writ petition stands disposed of . It would be ever open to the petitioner to move any appropriate forum for any compensation that may be advised to him. Anilkrsinha ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)