Judgment Tapen Sen, J.-In this Writ Application the Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Jamshedpur (Respondent No.3) communicated to the Petitioner vide Memo No. 1517/ ESE, JSR : dated 8.9.1994 as contained at Annexure-9 to the Writ Application whereby and whereunder the representation filed vide Annexures-5 and 5/A have been rejected. The aforementioned representations were against the levy of power factor surcharge of Rs. 6,62,515.95 in the Energy Bill, dated 5.4.1993 and of Rs. 4,58,256.04 in the Energy Bill dated 5.4.1993 (as contained at Annexures 2 and 2/A respectively). Consequently, the Petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the aforementioned two Energy Bills, dated 5.4.1993 so far as they seek to levy power factor surcharge of Rs. 6,62,515.95 and Rs. 4,58,256.04 respectively. The Respondents have also made a prayer that a direction be issued commanding upon the Respondents to refund/adjust the aforementioned amounts, the total whereof being Rs. 11,20,771.99 together with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 23.4.1993 as per the Order of this court passed in an earlier writ application bearing No. C.W.J.C. No. 396 of 1994 (R) vide order dated 18.8.1994. 2. The only points argued by Mr. Siren Poddar, learned counsel for the Petitioner are : (a) That since a period of six months has been granted under Clause 16.6 (f) of the 1991 Tariff (Annexure-1. to the Writ Application) and this Tariff having come into force w.e.f. 20.9.1991, the period of 6 (six) months would lapse on 19.3.1992 and therefore, any calculation of short fall in power factor below 0.85 during this period is impermissible so far as existing consumers are concerned; And (b) So far as new consumers are concerned, the short fall in power factor can be charged only after installation of Shunt Capacitor and not before such installation. 3. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Annexures-2 and 2/A would show that the shortfall in power factor has been calculated for the intervening period Le. 10/91 to 1/92 which falls within the exempted period and, therefore, this could not have been done. 4. 3. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Annexures-2 and 2/A would show that the shortfall in power factor has been calculated for the intervening period Le. 10/91 to 1/92 which falls within the exempted period and, therefore, this could not have been done. 4. So far as the rate of the power factor is concerned i.e. 0.85, this Court does not interfere with the same in view of the Judgment in the case of 'Bihar Chamber of Commerce and Another vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another' and other analogous cases reported in 1993 (1) PLJR Page 36. 5. Now coming back to the aforementioned two points raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid submissions in as much as 1991 Tariff does not contemplate that during the period of six months there would not be any calculation of shortfall in power factor below 0.85 during the six months period. In fact Clause 16.6 refers to and provides for two different categories, the first of which, relates to power factor surcharge and the other being the installation of Shunt Capacitor. So far as the power factor surcharge is concerned, the same is to be found in Clause 16.6 (a) and which provides that no consumer shall allow the average power factor of the supply taken by him to fall below 0.85 in any month. This has nothing to do with installation of Shunt Capacitor. Clause 16.6 (f) on the other hand, is very specific and the period of exemption of six months has been given to those existing consumers who have not installed or maintained a capacitor of adequate capacity. For them a period of six months have been allowed as a grace period so that they are able to install the same to the satisfaction of the Board during that period failing which, they are to be charged a surcharge of 1 % of the billed amount after the expiry of the six months. There is nothing in the Tariff which suggests or goes to show that during these six months period, no shortfall in power factor below 0.85 can be calculated. Similarly, the other submissions that shortfall fn power factor can be charged only after the installation of the Shunt Capacitor is also not acceptable because the Tariff does not say so. There is nothing in the Tariff which suggests or goes to show that during these six months period, no shortfall in power factor below 0.85 can be calculated. Similarly, the other submissions that shortfall fn power factor can be charged only after the installation of the Shunt Capacitor is also not acceptable because the Tariff does not say so. Both the above submissions, therefore, made on behalf of the learned counsel for the Petitioner are, therefore, rejected. There is no merit in this Writ Application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.