M/S.Dayal Steel Ltd. Vs Damodar Valley Corporation And O

(2025:JHHC:20742)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002

------

M/s. Dayal Steels Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its factory at village Chaha, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh Cantonment, District Hazaribagh through its Managing Director Raj Kumar Choudhary son of Late M.P. Choudhary, Resident of Gola Road, Ramgarh Cantonment, District, Hazaribagh … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Damodar Valley Corporation having its Registered and Head office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Calcutta through its Chairman.

¶7

Chief Engineer (Commercial), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Calcutta

¶8

Supdt. Engineer GOMD-V, DVC, Hazaribagh

¶9

Engineer In-charge, Ramgarh Sub Station, DVC Hazaribagh.

… Respondents

With

------

W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶14

------

¶15

M/s. Dayal Steels Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its factory at village Chaha, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh Cantonment, District, Hazaribagh through its Managing Director Raj Kumar Choudhary son of Late M.P. Choudhary, Resident of Gola Road, Ramgarh Cantonment, District, Hazaribagh … Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

Damodar Valley Corporation having its Registered and Head office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Calcutta through its Chairman.

¶18

Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation having its Registered and Head Office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Calcutta

¶19

¶20

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶21

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶22

Chief Engineer (Commercial), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Calcutta

¶23

Supdt. Engineer GOMD-V, DVC, Hazaribagh

¶24

Engineer In-charge, Ramgarh Sub Station, DVC Hazaribagh.

¶25

… Respondents

¶26

For the Petitioners : Mr. M. S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate Mr. Yashdeep Kanhai, Advocate Mr. Arya Vardhan Singh, Advocate Ms. Divya Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate

¶27

Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate

¶28

------

¶29

P R E S E N T

¶30

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶31

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶32

Both these Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter but W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002 has been filed with a slightly different prayer which was required after partial compliance of the prayer made in W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 by the respondents of the said writ petition, hence, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶33

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is a medium scale industry and it had set up its plant at village Chaha in the district of Hazaribagh for manufacturing of steel ingots/ billets as well as Ferro Alloys. In July, 2000, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent- D.V.C. for supply of electrical energy with an initial contract demand of 3 MVA (3000 KVA). The

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶36

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶37

petitioner constructed a sub-station in its premises under the supervision of the respondents and the same was inspected and approved by the competent authority of Central Electricity Department, New Delhi. Subsequently, there was an offer given by the respondent- D.V.C. on 08.01.2001 in terms of the decision taken by the D.V.C. Management that the tariff meter will be installed at the D.V.C. Premises only and the petitioner was requested to convey its acceptance. On the same day, the petitioner agreed to accept the installation of the tariff meter at D.V.C. Sub-station at Ramgarh for billing purposes provided that the line loss/transmission loss from D.V.C. Ramgarh Sub-station to the factory be allowed to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent issued a direction to its authorities giving clearance for commencing electric supply with contract demand of 3 MVA. The electric line of the petitioner was analyzed on 24.01.2001. The contract demand was enhanced to 5 MVA and subsequently in August, 2001 it was finally enhanced to 7 MVA. The respondents started raising bills on the basis of meter reading installed at its Sub-station at Ramgarh but no line loss/transmission loss was given; as was agreed upon between the parties. It is contended by the petitioner that in general loss on account of line loss/transmission loss is 7%-8% in respect of KVA and 10%-12% in respect of KWH. It is also submitted that the meter in the premises of DVC is installed, more than 9 kilometres away from the load point situated within the factory premises of the petitioner. Even in spite of writing several letters to the concerned authorities of the respondent- D.V.C., the respondent continued to raise current monthly bills without giving any due weightage on account of line loss/transmission loss.

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶40

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶41

The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.6023 of 2001 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 29.01.2002 directed the respondent authorities to take final decision in the matter of grant of transmission loss to the petitioner within 30 days after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents were further directed to revise all the bills and the excess amount paid by the petitioner against the bills, were directed to be refunded or adjusted in future. As the respondents did not dispose of the matter in spite of specific time as fixed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said W.P.(C) No.6023 of 2001 and sat over the matter for over one year and deliberately not taking the decision in the matter and were continuing raising bills for the month of January, 2002 also in spite of having sufficient money already deposited, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with the prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to raise electricity bills on the basis of meter installed by the petitioner itself in its factory premises or in alternative to give rebate of 10% by way of line loss/transmission loss to the petitioner both in respect of KWH and KVA if the bills are to be raised at all on the basis of meter installed at the substation of respondents corporation at Ramgarh and for issuance of an appropriate Writ or a Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents to revise all the bills raised by the respondents right from January, 2001 after granting line loss/transmission loss to the petitioner and other consequential reliefs.

¶42

During the pendency of W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002, as the respondents did not decide the issue as directed by the co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.6023 of

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶45

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶46

2001 but raised the bill for month of March, 2002 and there were many discrepancies in the bill for March, 2002, the petitioner protested the raising of the bill in illegal manner. Further, as the respondents pursuant to the order of this Court vide their letter dated 30.04.2002 intimated that the average of actual billed amount for the last six month ending March, 2002 is about Rs.1,25,77,000/- and requested the petitioner to arrange for enhancement of L.C Amount to Rs.1,25,77,000/- for making the ad hoc advance payment from June, 2002 to November, 2002 and continued to realize excess amount without giving rebate of 10% of on account of line loss/transmission loss the metered amount at Ramgarh Sub-station without any basis, made remission of a meagre amount instead of 10% of the metered amount towards transmissions loss. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002 with the prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the revised bills raised by the respondent No.1- Damodar Valley Corporation by which bills have been reduced only to an extent of Rs.10,64,749/- for the period from January, 2001 to April, 2002 instead of reduction by an amount of Rs.1,73,33,941/- in terms of meter reading installed at the end of the petitioner’s factory and the consequential reliefs.

¶47

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of this Court to the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Super Steel Casting Limited vs. Damodar Valley Corporation & Another passed in W.P.(C) No.27 of 2015 along with other allied cases reported in 2020:JHHC:5648 and submits that in the facts of that case, the co-ordinate

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶50

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶51

Bench observed that the dispute involved in that case and calculation of the refund squarely falls within the domain of the specialized authority and further the co-ordinate bench took note of the alternative remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003 and also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. CESC Limited reported in (2002) 8 SCC 715 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India noticing that the Commission constituted under Section 17 of the 1998 Act of the West Bengal, is an expert body and determination of tariff which has to be made by the Commission involves a very highly technical procedure, requiring working knowledge of law, engineering, finance, commerce, economics and management and went on to observe that neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court would in reality be appropriate appellate forums in dealing with this type of factual and technical matters; and submits that the prayer made in these Writ Petitions, involve a highly technical procedure, hence, in the light of aforesaid judgments, it is submitted that both these Writ Petitions are not maintainable.

¶52

This contention of the respondents is countered by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Ehsan & Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1331 para-28 of which reads as under:-

¶53

“ 28 . We are conscious of the law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a situation there must be a sincere effort

¶54

¶55

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶56

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶57

to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion.”

¶58

and submits that firstly there was no pari materia act as Act No.17 of 1998 which was prevalent in the State of West Bengal, at the time of filing of both these Writ Petitions. Secondly, the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 was not in force at the time of filing of both these Writ Petitions. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law, in view of reiteration made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Ehsan & Another (supra), that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exercise of Writ jurisdiction. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in the contention of the respondents that both these Writ Petitions are not maintainable.

¶59

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar on the point of maintainability as a preliminary issue, this Court is of the considered view that as has rightly been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the undisputed fact remains that on the date of filing of these two Writ Petitions, the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 was not in force rather the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was in force, in which there was no pari materia provision for adjudication of this issue, as has been provided for specifically with the aid of the experts in the Electricity Act, 2003. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 is prospective in nature. Hence, both these Writ Petitions, having been filed in the

¶60

¶61

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶62

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶63

year 2002, the alternative remedy provided for in the Electricity Act, 2003, which came into force subsequently cannot be a ground to dismiss the Writ Petitions which were filed prior to that, being not maintainable.

¶64

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the co-ordinate Bench observed that the raising of bills requires calculation by an expert body which is not the domain of this Court, is concerned, such an observation cannot be termed as a ratio decidendi of a judgment rather such observation was made regarding the facts of that case, so such observation, in a particular case, in the facts of that case, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot operate as a bar to declare that any Writ Petition filed with the prayer for revising the bills, can be stated to be not maintainable. Under such circumstances, this Court do not accede to the prayer of the respondents that both these Writ Petitions are not maintainable and holds that both these Writ Petitions are maintainable, hence, goes on to hear both these Writ Petitions.

¶65

On the merits of these Writ Petitions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Makers Casting India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1961 paragraph-13 of which reads as

¶66

under:-

¶67

“ 13 . This Court is of the considered view that once the meter is installed in the premises of a consumer and there is no allegation of tampering or theft of electricity, there was no basis for raising any bill on the basis of check meter installed outside the premises of the consumer particularly for the period involved in the present case when there was no provision for raising bills on the basis of check meter installed outside the premises of the consumer. The bills involved in the present case are only for the month of September 2011 and October 2011. The respondent has admittedly paid the

¶68

¶69

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶70

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶71

bills as per consumption recorded in the meter installed inside the factory premises.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶72

and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has observed in that case that as there was no basis for raising any bill on the basis of check meter installed outside the premises of the consumer for the period involved in that Letter Patent Appeal, when there was no provision for raising the bills on the basis of the check meter installed outside the premises of the consumer, once the meter is installed in the premises of a consumer and there is no allegation of tampering or theft of electricity, there was no occasion to raise the bills on the basis of the check meter installed outside the premises of the consumer of electricity. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in W.P. (C) No.1727 of 2002 be allowed by directing the respondents to raise bills on the basis of the meter installed within the factory premises of the petitioner.

¶73

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment

¶74

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Others vs. Ramkrishna Forging Limited reported in (2021) 20 SCC 230 paragraph-18 of which reads as under:-

¶75

“ 18 . It is noteworthy that the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (“the Board”) is a monopoly supplier of electricity which has laid down its own terms and conditions, regarding which the consumer has no say or choice but to sign on the dotted lines, if it wants of get electricity load varied for running its industry. The Board is an instrumentality of the State. It has to be fair and reasonable. If the Regulations provide for contract load to be varied even through a written communication, then in our considered view, in all fairness, though fresh agreements may have been executed at the stage of enhancement of load of the same electricity connection, the same cannot be treated as anything but an extension/amendment or modification of the initial agreement granting the electricity connection, which in the present case would be the agreement dated

¶76

¶77

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶78

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶79

14-4-2004. On the dictates of the Board, the consumer may have been required to sign fresh agreements for each enhancement of load, but the enhancement being for the same electricity connection which still continues, it would merely be amendment of the initial agreement. This would also be in consonance with the provisions of the 2005 Regulations, which have to be liberally interpreted in favour of the consumer.”

¶80

and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court India had the occasion to consider the conduct of a monopoly supplier of electricity wherein the consumer has no say or choice but to sign on the dotted lines, if it wants of getting electricity load varied for running its industry and has further went on to observe that such monopoly suppliers being an instrumentality of State, has to be fair and reasonable. It is then submitted that hence, even if the petitioner has agreed for payment of the energy bills raised on the basis of the meter installed in the Sub-station of D.V.C. at Ramgarh but still the respondent is under a bounden duty to raise bills only on the basis of meters installed in the premises of the factory of the petitioner.

¶81

It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in both these Writ Petitions be allowed.

¶82

Learned counsel for the respondents counters the arguments of the petitioner by submitting that as it is crystal clear from the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Makers Casting India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that such observations were made keeping in view the period involved in the facts of that case and it is crystal clear from the said judgment that the period involved in that case was after the Electricity Act, 2003 came into force, hence the ratio of the said

¶83

¶84

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶85

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶86

judgement is not applicable to the facts of this case, as the period involved in this case is prior to the Electricity Act, 2003 came into force. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the undisputed fact remains that from and after October, 2004, the Electricity Bills of the petitioner’s factory is raised on the basis of the meters installed in its factory premises in consonance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is next submitted that prior to coming in force of the Electricity Act, 2003, the relevant statute was the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Section 26 of the said Indian Electricity Act, 1910 refers to meter and it starts with the word “in absence of an agreement to the contrary” which goes to show that the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provided for an agreement for installation of meters between the supplier of the Electric Energy and the consumer and as the undisputed fact remains that an offer was made by the respondent- supplier of electric energy-D.V.C. to the petitioner to charge the electricity tariff based on the readings of the meters installed in the Sub-station of the D.V.C. with the condition that the transmission loss will be adjusted and the same was accepted by the petitioner, in writing and which fact also remains undisputed, so the offer and its acceptance completes an agreement between the parties. It is then submitted that therefore, in the absence of any fraud being claimed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot escape its liability of an agreement entered voluntarily with the respondent. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner having agreed to pay the bills to be raised on the basis of the meter installed in the Sub-station of the respondentD.V.C., there is no merit in both these Writ Petitions.

¶87

¶88

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶89

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶90

It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the respondent- supplier of electric energy had already granted and adjusted the transmission loss/line loss on the basis of the theory of the electricity/transmission of the power which has already been communicated to the petitioner and a copy of which has been kept at Annexure-H at running page-132 to 134 of the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. (C) No.1727 of 2002 by the respondents. Hence, there is no more dispute involved. It is therefore, submitted that both these Writ Petitions, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶91

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Makers Casting India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was in respect of the fact of that case and it has in so many words been mentioned in para-13 of the said judgment itself that such observations were made particularly for the period involved in that case and the undisputed fact remains that the period involved in that case was after coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the undisputed fact remains that the objection of the petitioner regarding the bills which are involved in these Writ Petitions was before coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003 rather the same relates to the period when the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was in force.

¶92

As has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which deals with meters,

¶93

¶94

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶95

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶96

starts with the words “in absence of an agreement to the contrary” which undoubtedly goes to show that the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provided for an agreement between the supplier of energy and its consumer. The undisputed fact remains that the respondents offered to supply electric energy to the petitioner by raising bills on the basis of the meters installed in the Sub-station of the respondent- D.V.C. at Ramgarh and the petitioner accepted the same and it was agreed upon between the parties that the line loss/transmissions loss be adjusted from the bills. The undisputed fact also remains that the respondents have already adjusted the transmissions loss/line loss amounting to Rs.10,64,749/-. Since the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the respondent- D.V.C. for supply of energy on the basis of the meters installed in the Sub-station at Ramgarh when the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not in force and there was no pari materia provision as Act No.17 of 1990 as was prevalent in State of West Bengal, in force in the state of Jharkhand, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it is not open for the petitioner to not to abide by the agreement voluntarily entered into by it, with the respondent-D.V.C. and to make a prayer to raise bills, on an arrangement which is contrary to the agreement voluntarily entered into by it with the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had no option but to accept the said terms and conditions. Because the said agreement being a voluntary agreement between the two parties, such agreement is subject to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. Such an agreement is a valid and binding one. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to raise bills on

¶97

¶98

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

¶99

(2025:JHHC:20742)

¶100

the basis of the reading of the meters installed in the factory of the petitioner for a period where the Electricity Act, 2003 was not in force.

¶101

So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the actual line loss/transmission has been reduced to Rs.10,64,749/instead of Rs.1,73,33,941/- is concerned, as already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement that in view of the Annexure-H kept at running page-129 to 134, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any material to show that there is some infirmity or illegality in such calculation, there is no justifiable reason for this Court to interfere with the same in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶102

Accordingly, both these Writ Petitions, being without any merit, are dismissed but under the circumstances without any cost.

¶103

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶104

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 28^th of July, 2025 AFR/ Animesh

¶105

¶106

W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 with W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002

M/S.Dayal Steel Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation And O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Dayal Steel Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation And O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhe Shyam Agrawal And Anr. Vs Smt. Anpurna Devi And Ors.

Shanti Ram Mahato And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Janeshwar Mahto Alias Janeshwar Singh And Anr. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Bhardwaj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Represented One Of Its Director Namely Ashok Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

M/S.Dayal Steel Ltd. Vs Damodar Valley Corporation And O

Nageshwar Prasad Singh Vs District Administration