AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.—All these writ applications have been taken together because the common question "to be answered in them is the same. In all these writ applications, two questions have been raised - (i) Whether the fuel surcharge as per the Tariff, 1993, is just and reasonable and (ii) Whether the other charges under clause 16.10.4 is leviable?
It has been agreed by both the parties that so far the second question is concerned, the other charges have been struck-down in the decision reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 130, which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the decision reported in B.S.E.B v. Bihar 440 Volt Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh, (1997) 11 SCC 380 . Therefore, bill cannot be raised on that. But it has been said that the amount has been paid. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that the current fuel surcharge at the current rate as per Tariff 2001 is being paid. The amount that has been paid by the petitioners on account of the other operational surcharges shall be adjusted from the bills against the fuel surcharge raised by the respondents. But subject to that adjustment, the current bills shall be regularly paid.
So far the first question, which relates to the rate of the fuel surcharge is concerned, this matter is sub-judice; therefore, this question need not be answered. The parties shall follow and be bound by the decision arrived at in CWJC No. 2758/2000.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ applications are disposed of.