Case: Jharkhand State Elect.Board  Vs. M/S Laxmi Business &amp; Cement Co.P.Ld.&amp;Anr

4. To give a glimpse of the controversy involved, in the year 1994 HT Agreement was entered into between Bihar State Electricity Board (predecessor in interest of JSEB) and the consumers which, inter-alia, stipulated the tariff that was to be charged by the JSEB from the consumers for supply of electricity to these consumers by the JSEB. In Clause 4(c) of the Agreement there was a provision of Minimum Guarantee Charges. In the year 2003, Electricity Act was enacted. Indubitably, power to frame tariff under this Act is given to SERC. SERC passed order dated framing the new tariff schedule (‘2004 Tarifffor short) under Section 86 of the Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The JSEB, however, continued to send the bills as per the Clause 4(c) referred to in the agreement which were paid by the consumers under protest. In May 2010, Writ Petitions were filed by the consumers 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. The JSEB, however, contended that the HT agreement entered into with the consumers still survived as the 2004 Tariff Schedule saves this Agreement.5. Since the Writ Petitions of the consumers 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 not found favour with the High Court.

Reasoning: On perusal of the Tariff Order, it becomes apparent that this is divided in different sections viz., section 1 is the chapter containingsection 2 is the chapter containingi.e. the Annual Revenue Requirement and tariff proposal submitted by the Board, section 3 is the chapter containingreceived from the stake holders, section 4 is the chapter containingSection 5 is the chapter containing ‘design of tariff structure and analysis ofsection 6 is the chapter containing ‘Directions to theand finally there is Annexure 5.1 containing the ‘TariffThis Tariff Schedule which is the final outcome of the tariff process is binding on the State as well.However, as stated above, the JSEB itself in its application/reference to the SERC did not ask for fixing any minimum guarantee charges. It would be relevant to mention that the JSEB in its proposal for fixation of tariff forsubmitted before the Regulatory Commission, indicated both the existing tariff and the tariff proposed by it in respect of all consumers, including all categories of HTS (High Tension Service) consumers. The SERC after undertaking the necessary exercise, fixed the tariff of all categories. The tariff proposed by the Board forconsumers 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 considered by the SERC.The tariff order further reveals that the SERC had even compared the proposal of JSEB with the tariff prevailing in other States in India and after detailed analysis thereof, it approved the tariff for HTS consumers which is mentioned in table 5.31 of the 2004 Tariff Schedule. Therefore, it cannot be said that the SERC was oblivious of the clause relating to minimum guarantee charges which JSEB was charging from its consumers as per the earlier agreements entered into with them. The position would become crystal clear from the following discussion in the 2004 Tariff Schedule wherein the SCRC gave specific reasons for revising and approving the tariff for HTS consumers.To put the matter beyond the pale of controversy, we would like to highlight another fact, namely the JSEB had even filed clarification applications before the SERC contending that having regard to the Clause 4(c) of the Agreement with theconsumers, the maximum demand charges would be those prescribed under Clause 4(c) of the Agreement. These applications were specifically rejected by the Commission. No appeal was preferred by the JSEB challenging those orders. It is, therefore, too late in the day for the JSEB to now argue that this aspect of minimum guarantee charge has not been dealt with by the SERC in the 2004 Tariff Schedule.It is also to be borne in mind that the tariff in force during the period was Tariff Order dated 27.12.2003 for the periodwhich was having force of law under the Electricity Act 2003. Thus, what follows from the above is that even if we proceed on the basis that the statutory agreements entered into earlier were saved, the agreement in question stands replaced by 2004 Tariff Schedule. At this juncture, we would like to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of BSES v. Tata Power Co.Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 195 wherein following pertinent observations were made.In view of the above, we are of the opinion that even the argument based on Section 185 ofthe Electricity Act, 2003 would not bring any change to the results of this case. We, thus, do not fault with the judgment of the High Court appealed against.In so far as delay in filing the Writ Petition is concerned, it appears from the chronology of events that the same has been duly explained. It is not in doubt that the consumers had paid the amount of bills raised by JSEB under protest because of the threat of disconnection. While doing so, they had raised specific plea with the JSEB that it was now supposed to raise the bills in accordance with the 2004 Tariff Schedule. The matter remained under consideration at the level of JSEB which kept approaching the Court as well as SERC seeking clarification of 2004 Tariff Schedule. As already pointed out above, clarification applications were filed which were dismissed by the Commission. However, as the JSEB did not judge from its stand even after the dismissal of these applications, the consumers approached the Court and filed the Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitioners have thus furnished satisfactory explanation for approach the Court.23. The plea of unjust and enrichment will not be available to the appellants. In the first place, no such plea was raised before the High Court either before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. In the Special Leave Petition, this submission was made for the first time at the time of hearing of the present appeals. Moreover, it is not a case of payment of tax which is a burden passed on the consumers. It is only in such cases that was held in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536  that the question of unjust enrichment would arise for consideration. As far as issue like the present is concerned, such a question was left open in para 107 of the aforesaid judgment. The Court had made it clear the concept of unjust enrichment had no application for refunds other than taxes, as is clear from the reading thereof.