JUDGMENT 1. - The abovementioned six appeals are being decided by this common judgment as identical questions of law and facts arise in all of them.S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 6411985 2. This appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 19.4.1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 31/1983 by which he partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent and further directed the defendants-appellants to issue fresh bills in respect of fuel surcharge keeping in view the directions given by this Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors., AIR 1984 (Raj.) 131 , meaning thereby the learned District Judge disallowed the element of interest on fuel surcharge. 3. It arises in the following circumstances : The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of District Judge, Bharatpur on 25.3.1983 stating inter alia that for his Oil Mill situated in Nai Mandi, Bharatpur, he had taken electricity connection from the defendants-appellants through agreement dated 27.3.1980 and for the billing month March, 1983, the plaintiff- respondent received bill dated 15.3.1983 issued by the defendants-appellants in which apart from the actual consumption of the electricity, the defendants-appellants further charged Rs. 73,181.17 as fuel surcharge. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the charging of fuel surcharge alongwith the interest was against the law and for setting aside that, the said suit was filed by the plaintiff- respondent. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was contested by the defendants- appellants by filing a written statement on 4.7.1983 and in that written statement, it was averred by the defendants- appellants that the Electricity Board had the power to charge fuel surcharge alongwith interest. Hence, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff- respondent be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed on 19.7.1984. Hence, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff- respondent be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed on 19.7.1984. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge, Bharatpur through his impugned judgment and decree dated 19.4.1985 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent holding inter alia that so far as the power of the defendants-appellants to charge fuel surcharge is concerned, the defendants-appellants had such power, but he came to the conclusion that since the fuel surcharge pertained to the period 1975 to 1980 and bill was issued in the year 1983, therefore, charging of interest on that was not permissible and, therefore, he directed the defendants-appellants to issue fresh bills after excluding the interest on fuel surcharge and in coming to the above conclusion, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 19.4.1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Bharatpur, the defendants-appellants have preferred this first appeal. 4. In this first appeal, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants is that the findings of the learned District Judge by which the element of interest on fuel surcharge was disallowed are erroneous should be set aside and interest should have been allowed on the on and the y e arrears of fuel surcharge. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bharatpur. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and perused the record of the case. 7. In my considered opinion, without going into the deep controversy of the matter, the findings of the learned District judge disallowing element of interest on arrears of fuel surcharge are liable to be confirmed one, as they are based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) and in the concluding portion of that judgment, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.M. Kasliwal (as he then was) came to the conclusion that in working out the final rates of fuel surcharge the element of interest will have to be excluded and calculations should be made afresh by excluding the interest in working out the formula. Ltd. (supra) and in the concluding portion of that judgment, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.M. Kasliwal (as he then was) came to the conclusion that in working out the final rates of fuel surcharge the element of interest will have to be excluded and calculations should be made afresh by excluding the interest in working out the formula. When there is a clear cut authority of this Court on the point in dispute and if after placing reliance on it, the learned District Judge has disallowed the element of interest on arrears of fuel surcharge, he has committed no illegality in doing so. 8. For the reasons stated above, this first appeal has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed.S.B. Civil First Appeals No. 65/1985, 66/1985, 67/1985, 68/1985 & 69/1985 9. Similarly, on the same reasoning, the other five appeals filed by the defendants-appellants raising identical questions of law and fact, also have no force and they are also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the above mentioned six appeals filed by the appellants- defendants are dismissed, after confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.4.1985 passed by the learned District judge, Bharatpur.Appeals dismissed. *******