Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 2. CWJC No. 10842 of 1999 [ 2000 (3) PLJR 60 ], giving rise to this appeal, was filed for quashing the decision of the Chief Engineer (Transmission) of the respondent -Bihar State Electricity Board (in short the Board) contained in his memo no. 1983 dated 27.10.99 rejecting the appellants representation filed in the light of the direction of this Court in an earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 8939 of 1999 [ 1999 (3) PLJR 481 ] and for a direction to the respondents to restore the electric line to its factory which stands disconnected. In his aforesaid decision, the Chief Engineer held that the appellant was liable to pay compensatory bill under clause 16.9 of the Tariff. Under clause 16.9 of the Tariff if the actual load of a consumer is found exceeding the contracted load without any specific permission, the Board may without prejudice to its other rights under the agreement or under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910, raise compensatory bill estimating the value of the electrical energy so extracted, consumed or used, in accordance with the formula as laid down therein. The dispute in the present case, in sum and substance, is whether clause 16.9 is applicable and the Board is accordingly entitled to raise the electric bill in accordance with the provisions of that clause. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows. 3. The appellant is a Company having a manufacturing unit at Deokuli, Bihta in the district of Patna. The factory, set up in 1995, manufactures Alloy Steel products. Iron scraps and other materials are put in the furnaces and melted with the aid of electricity. The process is known as Electrical Induction Furnace process. Electricity is naturally required in substantial quantity and it is in fact one of the main inputs. 4. The appellant entered into High Tension (HT) agreement for supply of electricity of 33000 Volts or 33 KV. The contracted load initially was 2500 KVA which was increased by subsequent agreements to 285-and 485-KVA, which is the present contracted load or demand. It may not be out of place to mention here that the nature of supply in the case of the appellant falls under HTS-II category. The contracted load initially was 2500 KVA which was increased by subsequent agreements to 285-and 485-KVA, which is the present contracted load or demand. It may not be out of place to mention here that the nature of supply in the case of the appellant falls under HTS-II category. There are admittedly two induction furnaces of 6 MT capacity each and three transformers of 3600 KVA, 3000 KVA and 630 KVA capacity. While the first two transformers are connected to the two induction furnaces, the third one is meant for auxiliary services such as Water system Crane, Cooling tower etc. having stepdown ratio of 33 KV/1600V, 33KV/1800V and 33KV/440V respectively. It is relevant to mention here that the supply of electricity being at 33000 Volts (33 KV) which is extremely high for metering purposes, a CT/PT Unit (current transformer/potential transformer) is installed. The function of the CT/PT unit is to suitably reduce the potential voltage of electricity of 33000 volts to 110 volts. After reducing the voltage with the aid of CT/PT unit, the electricity is taken to metering unit. It is the admitted position that seal is put on CT/ PT unit and its terminal cover, and similar seal is also put on the meters and metering room. The lock put on the meter room is also sealed. The key of the meter room remains with the officials of the Board. 5. On 26.8.99 a team of officials of the Board came to the factory premises of the appellant in surprise inspection. The Meter room was opened and the meters were inspected. It is said that the seals put on the meter room as well as the meters were found intact. After inspection they were again sealed. According to the appellant, meter readings were also taken and nothing amiss was detected. The team thereafter got the mains switched off from Bihta Air Force sub-station (which is the source of supply of electricity to the factory) for inspecting the CT/PT unit. The dispute starts from this stage. While according to the appellant the Inspecting team did not find anything amiss with the CT/PT unit also, since nothing adverse was recorded in the inspection report, according to the Board, at around that time it started raining heavily with the result that the inspection of CT/PT could not be made. The dispute starts from this stage. While according to the appellant the Inspecting team did not find anything amiss with the CT/PT unit also, since nothing adverse was recorded in the inspection report, according to the Board, at around that time it started raining heavily with the result that the inspection of CT/PT could not be made. In the circumstances, the inspection team put a plastic cover on the seal of the CT/PT terminal and sealed the cover in order to complete the inspection next day on "as it is" basis. On the next day i.e. 27.8.99, the inspecting team again came to the factory premises and resumed inspection of the CT/PT unit. While according to the Board, the CT/PT metering unit was found to be tampered. As a matter of fact, the team claimed to have retrieved the original CT/PT cover seal. A seizure list was prepared on the basis of which a first information report was lodged at the Bihta Police Station being Bihta P.S. Case No. 211/99 under sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act read with section 379 IPC. On 31.8.99 the bill in terms of clause 16.9 of the Tariff was raised and served on the appellant. The appellant challenged the validity of the bill in CWJC No. 8939 of 1999 [ 1999 (3) PLJR 481 ]. On the ground that the appellant had not been given any opportunity of hearing and there was thus violation of the rules of natural justice, following some earlier decisions on the point, on 27.9.99 this Court set aside the impugned bill. The Court directed the Genera! Manager -cum-Chief Engineer, Central Bihar Area Electricity Board or any other officer of equal or higher rank to determine the liability of the petitioner. In the facts of the case, the appellant was denied restoration of the electric line. Pursuant to direction of this Court a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.10.99 to which the petitioner submitted its show cause on 20.10.95 (sic- 99?). The appellant in the meantime had also preferred LPA No. 1203 of 1999 which was eventually withdrawn on 28.10.99, as the Chief Engineer (Transmission) had taken the impugned decision in the meantime on 27.10.99. The appellant thereafter filed the present writ petition giving rise to this appeal. 6. The appellant in the meantime had also preferred LPA No. 1203 of 1999 which was eventually withdrawn on 28.10.99, as the Chief Engineer (Transmission) had taken the impugned decision in the meantime on 27.10.99. The appellant thereafter filed the present writ petition giving rise to this appeal. 6. Shri M.L. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the dispute being of highly technical nature should be referred to experts as observed by this Court in its order dated 12.1.2000 even though the Board did not agree to such reference. On merit of the case Shri Verma submitted, (i) Clause 16.9 of the Tariff refers to theft of electrical energy, but without recording any finding that the theft or pilferage of energy was being committed, bill has been raised under that clause, (ii) The finding that the appellant had tampered with the seal put on the CT/PT terminal is erroneous. In any view, tampering by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the theft was being committed. (iii) The bill is to be raised on the basis of contract load or where the actual load exceeds the contract load, in accordance with clause 16.5 of the tariff. Load of installed transformers in any case cannot be the basis. (d) The Chief Engineer decided the claim on the basis of theoretical assumption. There is no scientific basis for holding that load @ 600 KVA is required for producing one metric ton of steel ignot. (e) The learned Single Judge formulated five points but did not decide any of them. (f) The defence of the appellant was not considered by the Chief Engineer or by the learned Single Judge. 7. Shri Y.G. Giri, learned counsel for the respondent-Board, submitted as follows. The validity of the tariff has been upheld upto the Supreme Court and the appellant cannot question the power of the Board to raise bill in terms of clause 16.9. Clause 16.9 is not only penal but also compensatory in nature. In the present case, once the seal put on meters including CT/PT unit is removed, it becomes amenable to manipulation and theft of energy. Tampering of seal is a strong prima facie evidence to suggest theft of electricity attracting the provisions of clause 16.9. Clause 16.9 is not only penal but also compensatory in nature. In the present case, once the seal put on meters including CT/PT unit is removed, it becomes amenable to manipulation and theft of energy. Tampering of seal is a strong prima facie evidence to suggest theft of electricity attracting the provisions of clause 16.9. Most of the units using induction furnace melting process have already agreed to be charged @ 600 KVA per MT of steel, which demolishes the appellants contention regarding calculation of connected load.at the aforesaid rate as being arbitrary. Finally, having regard to the scope of judicial review the decision of the Chief Engineer is not subject to scrutiny by this Court. 8. Before considering the contentions made on behalf of the parties it would be appropriate to first know the case of the Board. The Board had filed a counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge but I would first refer to the show cause notice which was issued to the appellant in the light of the order of the learned Single Judge in the previous writ petition, CWJC No. 839 of 1999. It is on the show cause filed by the appellant pursuant to the said notice that the Chief Engineer took the impugned decision. Although several points running in as many as seven paragraphs were indicated in the notice, some of which refer to events and evidence, broadly three grounds were communicated to the appellant(i)On 27.8.99 in course of inspection which could not be completed on the previous day on account of heavy rains, the CT/ PT unit and its terminal boxes were examined; the seal bearing no. 045660 was found tempered. The said seal had been put on the CT/PT terminal box on 14.5.99. The signature of the authority was also not found on the seal. A seizure memo was prepared and an FIR was lodged alleging theft of electricity at the hands of the appellant and its officials, (ii) The total capacity of induction furnaces in operation being 12 MT the energy of 7200 KVA load was required whereas the contract load was only 4850 KVA. This also suggested that the factory was engaged in theft of electricity by withdrawing energy of higher load than the agreed contracted load. The requirement of the furnaces had been got verified from their manufacturers. This also suggested that the factory was engaged in theft of electricity by withdrawing energy of higher load than the agreed contracted load. The requirement of the furnaces had been got verified from their manufacturers. The requirement @ 7200 KVA was also corroborated by the load and capacity of the transformers installed in the factory. (iii) As per the meter power had been consumed on an average of 21.25 hours per day. The factory was running in two shifts of 12 hours duration with workers working in each shift. On the basis of the hours of power consumed the load and capacity of the two furnaces scientifically established production of 3000 MT of ingots every month. The appellant, thus, must have consumed 16.2 lacs units per month but it had paid on average 9.42 lacs per month. (iv) The theft of energy is also proved by reading of the check meter of the appellants factory at the feeder point at Air Force Sub-Station, Bihta as well claim filed by the appellant under clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement. 9. In reply to the aforesaid notice and the grounds contained therein the appellant had filed a detailed show cause on 20.10.99. As regards the allegation of tampering of the seal on the CT/PT terminal, it took the stand that though seal Bit no. 045660 P was fixed on the CT/PT terminal in course of inspection held on 14.5.99 in the inspection report it was nowhere mentioned that the said seal was signed either before or after fixing it on the cover. The appellant stated that on 26.8.99 the seal on the terminal unit was wrapped by a plastic cover and again sealed, but the seal put on the plastic cover was found intact on 27.9.99 which demolishes the entire case of the Board. Neither in the seizure list nor in any other document the nature of the tampering had been mentioned. The appellant also took the plea that since criminal case instituted against the Board was pending, unless the report of the Investigating agency is received, it is not proper to reach any conclusion regarding theft of electricity and applicability of clause 16.9 of the tariff. The appellant denied the Boards case that 600 KVA electric load was acquired for melting on MT of steel ingots. The appellant denied the Boards case that 600 KVA electric load was acquired for melting on MT of steel ingots. It also rejected the allegation that excess consumption of energy was proved by the level of production mentioned in the notice. 10. Counsel for the appellant took great pains to submit that the whole case of the Board is based on the assumption that load of 600 KVA per MT is required and there being two furnaces of 6 MT capacity each i.e. of 12 MT, the actual connected load would not be less than 7200 KVA but there is no scientific basis for this assumption. Detailed arguments with reference to scientific measurement were made on behalf of the parties. Similar submissions appear to have been made before the learned Single Judge. Dealing with this branch of submission, the learned Single Judge [ 2000 (3) PLJR 60 Para 10] observed : "Highly technical arguments were advanced before me both against and in support of the validity of the equation that 600 KVA load will be required in producing/ melting 1 MT of steel in an induction furnace. Counsel for the parties relied upon treatises manuals and handbooks of Engineering to show the correctness or incorrectness of the aforesaid equation. I can only say that from whatever I was able to gather I think that the equation in question does not seem to be quite unfounded and fanciful but it seems to have some scientific validity. I may, however, add that the above observation is more for the sake of records and in acknowledgement of the learned and highly technical arguments advanced by the counsel." 11. It is well known that while making judicial review of administrative or qusi-judicial decision under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not sit as a court of appeal. If there were materials before the authority for coming to the decision, the Court has only to see whether the materials are relevant to the dispute or some relevant factor has been omitted from consideration. But the High Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of adequacy of materials. If there were materials before the authority for coming to the decision, the Court has only to see whether the materials are relevant to the dispute or some relevant factor has been omitted from consideration. But the High Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of adequacy of materials. It appears from the records that in coming to the conclusion regarding the quantum of electric had required for melting 1 MT of ingots apart from other materials, the Chief Engineer took into account the fact that Megatherm Electronic Pvt. Ltd., the supplier of the two induction furnaces had confirmed that 6 MT furnace would require load of 2500 kwh which comes to approximately 3000 KVA. Considering the nature of the dispute, the materials on record and the nature and scope of judicial review, I do not think it is possible to take a contrary view in writ jurisdiction. A significant feature of the case is that though the appellant denied that the seal put on the plastic cover on the CT/PT unit was tampered with, a sanha was lodged by one of its officials alleging tampering at the hands of the members of the inspection team. I, therefore, take it that tampering of CT/PT unit is rather an admitted fact. It is relevant to mention here that the appellants case in this regard was rejected by this Court in the previous writ petition, CWJC No. 8339 of 1999 [ 1999(3) PLJR 481 ] in the following words : "I am unable to accept the submission and to my mind the making of the FIR by an official of the petitioner is quite significant. It is to be noted that the inspection team consisted of a number of senior officers of the Board. An Executive Magistrate having no connection with the Board was also one of the members of the team and it is difficult for me to accept that every member of the team had joined in the conspiracy to frame false charges against the petitioner. The making of the FIR, therefore, appears to be indicative of the fact that CT/PT terminal box was, in fact, found not in order." 12. It is significant to point out that on 27.8,99 when inspection team again visited the appellants factory to resume the inspection work it allegedly found and seized the tampered seal bearing seal bit no. The making of the FIR, therefore, appears to be indicative of the fact that CT/PT terminal box was, in fact, found not in order." 12. It is significant to point out that on 27.8,99 when inspection team again visited the appellants factory to resume the inspection work it allegedly found and seized the tampered seal bearing seal bit no. 045660 P which had been put on tht CT/PT unit. There does not appear to be any dispute that the aforesaid seal (No. 045660 P) had been put on the terminal cover of the CT/PT unit on 14.5.99. This is corroborated by the inspection report of that day i.e. 14.5.99 the correctness of which has not been challenged. This was in fact part of the appellants show cause. It appears from different inspection reports brought on record that whenever inspection team visited the factory the seals earlier fixed at different points were removed in order to find out any irregularity and after completing the inspection new seals were fixed. 13. Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the own case of the Board, CT/PT unit, which is kept at a considerable height from the ground level to prevent easy access, could not be inspected on 26.8.99 as it had started raining and, therefore, a plastic wrapper was put around the terminals and seal bearing no. 0167873P was put on it so that CT/PT unit could be checked on "as it is" basis on the following day. But, there is nothing to show that the said seal put on the plastic wrapper around the terminal box had been tampered with, and if it was not so, there was no question of the CT/PT unit being tampered with. 14. It may be that no fresh inspection report was prepared on 27.8.99 nor in the written report which was lodged with the police on 27.8.99 it was mentioned that the seal fixed on the plastic wrapper put around the terminals on 26.8.99 had been removed or tampered with. It may also be that without removing that seal on plastic wrapper the CT/ PT unit could not be interfered with nor the seal fixed on the terminal parts on 14.5.99 could be tampered. But this is not something which would make the case of the Board doubtful. The fact of the matter is that seal bit no. It may also be that without removing that seal on plastic wrapper the CT/ PT unit could not be interfered with nor the seal fixed on the terminal parts on 14.5.99 could be tampered. But this is not something which would make the case of the Board doubtful. The fact of the matter is that seal bit no. 045660P undisputedly fixed on the terminal cover of CT/PT unit on 14.5.99 was found tampered with. CT/PT is a crucial part of the process of electricity consumption in factories which receive electricity of a high voltage. The electric current coming at a very high voltage from the main line of the Board is made to pass through this CT/PT (Current Transformer/Potential Transformer) unit in order to suitably bring down the voltage at which current may be used in the factory and measured in the meters. Attached to the main CT/PT box is a smaller box called CT/PT terminal box. It houses the terminals from which wires go to the metering unit for recording both KVA (load) and unit consumption. Both the main CT/PT box and the CT/PT terminal box are kept under seals fixed by the officials of the Board. If the seal(s) is removed, the terminals become easily accessible to the consumers and by fiddling with these terminals, such as by removing the wires or putting wires of higher resistence, the flow of energy to the metering unit can be manipulated, and then if the consumer desires, a low recording of both KVA and unit consumption can be managed. 15. Therefore, where the CT/PT unit is found to be tampered a prima facie case of theft of electricity is made out. Surely, it would be idle to expect any direct evidence of theft of electricity. It has to be gathered from the attending circumstances. 15. Therefore, where the CT/PT unit is found to be tampered a prima facie case of theft of electricity is made out. Surely, it would be idle to expect any direct evidence of theft of electricity. It has to be gathered from the attending circumstances. Clause 16.9 provides that "if at any time the consumer is found exceeding the contracted load without specific permission of the Board, the Board may without prejudice to its other rights under the Agreement or under the provisions of the Electricity Act, estimate the value of the electrical energy, so extracted, consumed or used, calculated as below and may also disconnect the supply without notice." Dealing with more or less similar provisions occurring in the tariff of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board in the case of M.P. Electricity Board V/s. Harsh Wood Products, (1996) 4 SCC 522 , the Supreme Court held that tampering of meters lead to prima facie conclusion of pilferage of electricity. The Court, in fact, went to the extent of holding that in such cases the consumer is not even entitled to an opportunity of hearing. The Court observed that such opportunity under Section 24 does not apply to demands on detection of pilferage. It applies to a case of regular supply. It would be useful to quote the relevant provision of the M.P Electricity Board Tariff which was subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid case, as under : "Where any consumer is detected in the commission of any malpractice with reference to his use of electrical energy including authorised alternations to installations, unauthorised extension and use of devices to commit theft of electrical energy, the Board may without prejudice to its other rights, cause the consumers supply to be forthwith disconnected. The supply may be restored in the discretion of the Divisional Engineer of the Board if the consumer forthwith compensated the Board and pays all dues as per bill and take such other action as he may be directed by the Divisional Engineer of the Board take in this connection." The above decision was noticed with approval in Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. V/s. A.P. State Electricity Board, (1998) 4 SCC 470 . 16 On behalf of the appellant, reliance was placed on Rarnchandra Prasad Sharma V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 349, The aforesaid decision had arisen out of conviction of the appellants in different criminal cases. 16 On behalf of the appellant, reliance was placed on Rarnchandra Prasad Sharma V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 349, The aforesaid decision had arisen out of conviction of the appellants in different criminal cases. In one case (Cr. Appeal No. 49 of 1963) the appellant had been put on trial and convicted on the charge of dishonest abstraction of energy under sections 39/ 44(c) of the Electricity Act. The prosecution case was that level of consumption of energy between June 28 and July 1, i.e. for three days @ 300 units, showed that the energy was dishonestly being abstracted. While upholding the conviction under Section 39 the Court observed that the rice in consumption between June 28 and July 1 could be accounted for the several circumstances. In the other case (Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 1963) the appellant had been convicted under section 39 on the charge that the terminal covers of two of the meters were found removed from their normal position and were actually found hanging by the wires. Cover seals of the meters had also been tampered with. The Supreme Court held that it was not sufficient to say that the meter had been tampered with because it was under the control of the accused. It was further necessary to say that there was dishonest obstruction, consumption or use of electrical energy by the accused. The decision, in my opinion, can be of no help to the appellant. The decision was rendered in the context of a criminal case and the point for consideration was whether the ingredients of section 39 of the Electricity Act were proved or not. As is well known the nature and scope of proceeding in criminal case is quite different from civil proceeding. A person can be convicted on a criminal charge only if the ingredients constituting the charge are proved beyond all reasonable doubts, it is not so in case of a proceeding to determine the civil liability. 17. I do not find any substance in the contention that unless a conclusive finding is recorded regarding the theft or pilferage of electrical energy clause 16.9 cannot be applied. The word found occurring in caluse 16.9 has to be understood not in the sense of a "finding" in a criminal case or other proceedings where some lis is decided. 17. I do not find any substance in the contention that unless a conclusive finding is recorded regarding the theft or pilferage of electrical energy clause 16.9 cannot be applied. The word found occurring in caluse 16.9 has to be understood not in the sense of a "finding" in a criminal case or other proceedings where some lis is decided. In the context of clause 16.9 it simply means that where in course of inspection it transpires that the actual connected load of the consumer is more than the sanctioned or contracted load, the Board may proceed in the manner provided in the claim. However, this must be on the basis of some objective finding. Thus, in my opinion, in order to attract clause 16.9 all that is required is that there should be some objective findings, and the word found has to be understood accordingly. 18. Argument was made as to the nature of the charge under clause 16.9. While, according to the appellant clause 16.9 is a penal clause, according to the Board, besides being penal it is also compensatory in nature. I do not wish to go into this question. Assuming that the clause is penal in nature and effect because the consumer is required to pay the charges at the rate three times the normal tariff rate, this only means that before applying the clause it should be given opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, such opportunity having already been given, the dispute as to the nature of the provision becomes insignificant. 19. At this stage it would be apposite to notice clause 16.9, so far as relevant, as under : "16.9. (A) Detection of unauthorised load : If at any time the consumer is found exceeding the contracted load without specific permission of the Board, the Board may, without prejudice to its other rights under the agreement or under the provisions of the Electricity Act, estimate the value of the electrical energy, so extracted, consumed or used shall be calculated as below and may also disconnect the supply without notice : 1. Necessary assessment for compensation in the following malpractice and theft of energy cases shall be made as below : (a) In cases of use of energy through artificial means or by adopting any appliance. Necessary assessment for compensation in the following malpractice and theft of energy cases shall be made as below : (a) In cases of use of energy through artificial means or by adopting any appliance. (b) In case of using energy by creating obstruction in running of meters or interfering with the system of supply or wires etc. (c) In case of dishonest obstruction of electrical energy or running of energy when supply is disconnected. Unit assessed : L x F x H x D Where L = is the connected load in KW H = is the average no. of hours per day if supply is made available in the distribution mains, feeding in the consumer. D = is the no. of days for which the pilferage took place which can be established from production of satisfactory evidence by the consumer. In case there is no possible evidence to establish the period, this factor be taken equivalent to 180 or the no. of days elapsed from the date of connection/installation of meter till the date of detection of the pilferage whichever is less. F= Denotes the factors for the categories noted below : (i) For domestic F = 0.20 (ii) For commercial F = 0.40 (iii) For Small & Medium (upto 75 KW) F = 0.50 (iv) For Large & Heavy (with load above 75 KW) F= 0.75 Note : In case of Large and Heavy Power consumers for the purpose of assessment, the demand for the month shall be taken as contracted demand of the consumer or 75 per cent of the connected load, at the time of inspection, whichever is higher. II. Pilferage of energy detected during marriage & other occasions for temporary connection : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX III. Method of charging the assessed units as indicated in para I & II above. (a) The consumption so assessed shall be charged at thrice the rate per unit of the Tariff applicable to the consumer excluding the consumption recorded by the meter and the latter shall be charged at the appropriate tariff rates. The amount billed at this rate (thrice the tariff rate) shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing consumers liability to pay monthly/ minimum guarantee. The amount billed at this rate (thrice the tariff rate) shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing consumers liability to pay monthly/ minimum guarantee. (b) In case of consumer covered under categories of small power for P.T.W/ Pumping sets for irrigation purposes, small & medium power for industries and commercial loads and temporary supply, the excess load over and above the contracted load shall be chargeable at triple the rate of flat rate/ M.C.G. of the appropriate tariff." 20. It would appear that clause 16.9, firstly provides for the manner of the assessment of the chargeable unit and, then, lays down the rate at which the units so assessed are to be charged, that is, three times. The words of significance are "at thrice the rate per unit" of the tariff applicable to the consumer excluding the consumption charges and the minimum guarantee charges which shall be chargeable at the appropriate tariff rate. Though fuel surcharge leviable under clause 16.10 of the tariff is also a part of the tariff it would appear that the levy is "in addition to the other charges as laid down in the tariff schedule". A bare reading of clause 16.10, quoted below, would bring out the difference. "Tariff rates of CS categories of II & III, LT Industrial Service, HT Service, EWHT Service and Railway Traction Service are subject to Operational Surcharge i.e. all consumers of the aforesaid categories shall be required to pay operational surcharge at a rate to be determined every year in accordance with the formula given below in addition to the other charges as laid down in tariff schedule." As per the scheduletariff charges in the case of 33 KV HT Service are : (a) Demand surcharge @ 115 per KVA per month (the billing demand will be the maximum demand recorded during the month or 75% of the contract demand, whichever is higher) and (b) Energy charges @ 172 p. per Kwh, subject to minimum base charges as indicated in clause 15.2 payable every month. 21. On behalf of the Board an argument was put forward that besides the aforesaid two items mentioned under the caption at Serial no. 3 of the Schedule, there are other items mentioned in the same schedule which are also part of the tariff. The submission to some extent is right. 21. On behalf of the Board an argument was put forward that besides the aforesaid two items mentioned under the caption at Serial no. 3 of the Schedule, there are other items mentioned in the same schedule which are also part of the tariff. The submission to some extent is right. But tariff does not only mean what the consumer is required to pay, it also includes any concession or rebate he is entitled to. However, it is obvious that while fixing his liability "per unit of the tariff applicable" under Clause 16.9 only such items can be taken into account which the consumer is required to pay. Read with clause 16.10.1 which contemplates levy of fuel surcharge "in addition to the other charges as laid down in the tariff schedule". I am inclined to think that while raising bill under clause 16.9 fuel surcharge cannot be demanded at thrice the rate in the same manner as units assessed in accordance with the formula laid down in that clause are to be charged. Similar would be the position with respect to the levy of State Electricity Duty under clause 16.3. That clause likewise provides that in addition to the charges laid down in the tariff State Electricity Duty as per the provisions of Bihar State Electricity Duty Act, 1948, as amended from time to time, shall be levied on the consumers. In my view, therefore, the appellant could not be charged fuel surcharge and/or State Electricity Duty at thrice the rate at which it is chargeable. The fuel surcharge is chargeable per unit and not three times the unit. The levy of fuel surcharge and State Electricity Duty at three times the unit rate, therefore is not in accordance with law and must be deleted from the impugned bill(s). 22. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any error in the impugned decision of the Chief Engineer (Transmission) dated 27.1.99 or the consequential Bill(s) except so far as they relate to fuel surcharge and the State Electricity Duty. The claim to that extent is allowed. 23. In the result, this appeal and the writ petition are allowed in part. The claim to that extent is allowed. 23. In the result, this appeal and the writ petition are allowed in part. The respondent-Board is directed to serve fresh bill as per the observations made hereinabove and to restore the electric connection of the appellant-factory within two days of the payment of such bill. The parties shall bear their own costs.