Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The Appellant in both the cases is Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB), which is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 5^th July 2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in two appeals. These appeals were preferred by the Appellant JSEB against the orders dated 17^th February 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of that court in the two Writ Petitions which were filed by M/s. Laxmi Business & Cement Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog (arrayed as Respondent No. 1 in each appeal and hereinafter referred to as the 'consumers'). These Respondents had questioned the validity of the bills raised by the JSEB in those Writ Petitions, primarily on the ground that the bills were contrary to and in excess of the tariff fixed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "SERC"). Their contention was accepted by the learned Single Judge and the order of learned Single Judge is affirmed by the Division Bench as well.

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 Tariff Schedule' for 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. Before us as well, same very contentions were raised which were raised by the JSEB in the High Court. Additionally, it was also contended that even Section 185(2)(a) of the Act read with Section 6(B) of the General Clauses Act categorically protects the previous operation of the earlier enactment, duly done or saved thereunder.

It is, thus, clear that questions which arise for consideration in these appeals are the following:

(i) Whether after the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003 which came into force on ........