Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. All these cases relate to payment of "fuel surcharge". 2. Today, they were listed under different headings like "For Orders"; "For Admission"; and "For Hearing". 3. There being common point of law involved and as the cases now stand covered by decision of this Court, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment. 4. The Bihar State Electricity Board (Board for short) came out with order vide letter dated 5th January 95, wherein they levied "fuel surcharge" @ 25.98 ps./K.W.H. with effect from 1.7.93 and "other operational surcharge" @ 8.78 ps./K.W.H. with effect from 1.7.93. Against the aforesaid order dated 5th January 95, certain writ petitions were preferred which remained pending for disposal before this Court. 5. In the meantime, while such writ petitions were pending, this Court In the case of Bihar 440 Volt Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh V/s. B.S.E.B. and others, reported in 1994(2) PLJR 103, held that the Board cannot charge "operational surcharge", which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.E.B V/s. Bihar 440 Volt Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh, . 6. The Board thereafter came out with modified order on 5th February 97, wherein while they laid down provisional rate of "fuel surcharge", no such charge was shown in respect of "operational surcharge". The "fuel surcharge" for certain periods were shown as follows : (a) 1994-95, @ 43.89 ps/K.W.H.; (b) 1995-96, @ 72.123 ps./K.W.H.; and (c) April, 1996 onwards, @ 102.00 ps./K.W.H. 7. The aforesaid "fuel surcharge" levied for the period as shown above vide order dated 5th January 97 was challenged before this Court in the case of Tata Yodogawa Ltd. V/s. B.S.E.B. and analogous cases 1998(2) All PLR 519. 8. In the said case, this Court vide an interim order constituted a committee to calculate "fuel surcharge" in terms of 1993 Tariff, taking into consideration Clause (17) therein. The Committee subsequently submitted some sort of report, which was not unanimous nor accepted by the Board. 8. In the said case, this Court vide an interim order constituted a committee to calculate "fuel surcharge" in terms of 1993 Tariff, taking into consideration Clause (17) therein. The Committee subsequently submitted some sort of report, which was not unanimous nor accepted by the Board. At that stage, this Court vide interim order dated 21st March, 1997 passed in the case of M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra), fixed provisional rate of "fuel surcharge" for payment by way of interim arrangement, at the following rates: July, 1993-94 - 12.36 ps./K.W.H. 1994-95 - 21.33 ps./K.W.H. 1995-96 - 46.37 ps./K.W.H. 1996-97 - 56.37 ps./K.W.H. (estimated) Ultimately, the aforesaid case of M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra) and others were taken up for final hearing and the matter was remitted to the Board to consider the report of Committee submitted on 16th March 97 before this Court to take a final decision in consultation with the State of Bihar in respect of two questions as enumerated in the aforesaid judgment. It further ordered that till final decision is taken in the matter, the interim order passed by this Court on 21st March 97 in the said case (M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra), shall operate even for the consumers who were not parties to the said case. 9. Admittedly, the aforesaid matter is still pending before the Board and no final order has been passed on such remand. In the meantime, the consumers/parties are required to pay "fuel surcharge on the basis of rate fixed by this Court by interim order dated 21st March" 97, which has been accepted by the Counsel for the parties. 10. So far as the cases wherein order dated 5th January, 1995 was challenged, the dispute related to "fuel surcharge" for the period July 93 to March 94. The aforesaid question now stands decided in view of decision in the case of M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra), who are now required to pay @ 12.75 ps./K.W.H. till final decision is taken by the Board. The petitioners of some of such cases, submitted that they had already deposited excess amount having deposited "fuel surcharge" together with "operational surcharge" (@ 32 ps./K.W.H.) in view of order dated 5th January 95. 11. The Counsel for the Board submitted that if excess amount has already been paid by one or other consumer for the period July 93 to March 94. 11. The Counsel for the Board submitted that if excess amount has already been paid by one or other consumer for the period July 93 to March 94. can be adjusted against future bill, if any consumer approaches before the Board/competent authority and show that he has deposited certain excess amount in terms with order dated 5th January 95. 12. In some of the cases, the dispute relates to payment "fuel surcharge" for the period 1993-94; 1994-95 and 1995-96. As they are also covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Tata Yodogawa (supra), no further order is required to be passed in these cases. The Board/its authorities are required to charge on the basis of rate as fixed by this Court vide interim order dated 21st March, 1997, till final decision is taken by the Board. If any one or other petitioner has paid excess amount, in the meantime, may bring the same to the notice of the competent authority, who will adjust such excess amount against future bill. 13. In one case, question has been raised relating to payment of "fuel surcharge" for the period 1997-98. Admittedly, the aforesaid question of payment of "fuel surcharge" for the period 1st April 97 onwards never fell for consideration before this Court in the case of M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra). There is no specific order/ notification issued by the Board in respect to the period from 1st April, 1997 onwards. While the case of M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. (supra) was pending before this Court, the Director of Accounts (Revenue), Board issued one letter on 3rd June 97 and asked the authorities to charge "fuel surcharge" @ Rs. 102 ps./K.W.H. for the period 1.4.1997 onwards without any authority of the Board. 14. The question relating to payment of "fuel surcharge" by interim arrangement for the period 1st April 97 onwards, fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Kaizen Auto Pvt. Ltd. V/s. B.S.E.B. and Ors. (uncorporated) in C.W.J.C. No. 1110 of 1997 (R), wherein this Court allowed the petitioner to pay "fuel surcharge" @ 68 ps/K.W.H. for the period 1.4.1997 onwards, by way of interim arrangement till the final decision of the Board. 15. (uncorporated) in C.W.J.C. No. 1110 of 1997 (R), wherein this Court allowed the petitioner to pay "fuel surcharge" @ 68 ps/K.W.H. for the period 1.4.1997 onwards, by way of interim arrangement till the final decision of the Board. 15. According to this Court, to maintain consistency, one or other petitioner who is required to pay "fuel surcharge" for the period 1.1.1997 onwards, are required to pay at least @ 68 ps./K.W.H. for the present, subject to final decision as may be taken by the Board. 16. Accordingly, I direct, the petitioners who are required to deposit such "fuel surcharge" amount for the period 1993-94, 1994-95, 1996-97, and 1997-98, to pay such amount at the following rate by way of interim arrangement, till the decision of the Board. 1993-94 : 12.38 ps./K.W.H. 1994-95 : 21.33 ps./K.W.H. 1995-96 : 46.37 ps./K.W.H. 1996-97 : 56.37 ps./K.W.H. 1.4.97 : 68.00 ps./K.W.H. onwards 17. If any of the consumers/petitioners have paid excess amount towards "fuel surcharge" beyond the amount as specified above, he/they may bring the same to the notice of the concerned authorities of the Board, who will adjust the same against future bill, for the present subject to final decision, as may be taken by the Board. 18. All the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, on the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs.