JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Writ petition No. W.P. (C) 1843/2000, W.P. (C) 1844/2000 and W.P. (C) 1845/ 2000 have been heard together and they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. I have heard Mr. S. K. Kejriwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. B. D. Das, learned Counsel for the Respondents, the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB). The Petitioners are the consumers of electricity under the ASEB and they are consuming power paying their bills under the two-tier system of payment of energy charges. The consumers are required to pay fixed charges as well as metering charges. There is no dispute as regards the metering charges. The entire controversy revolves around the fixed charges for the period relating to 8.9.94 to 1.9.98. 3. Under the terms and conditions, a consumer is required to pay fixed charges on the basis of 80% of the connected load, and there is no dispute about the above proposition. However, the dispute arose when the ASEB found that the connected load of the consumers is higher than the transformer capacity and, therefore, ASEB raised additional bills directing the consumers/writ Petitioners to pay the differential amount of fixed charges for the above-mentioned period, holding that in the above contingency, the consumer is required to pay fixed charges at the rate of 100% of the transformer capacity. The connected load as well as the transformer capacity of the Petitioners was as below: Name Connected load Transformer capacity 1. Mahadeobari 264.70 KVA 250 KVA Tea co. 2. AnadaBag 277.64 KVA 250 KVA Tea co. 3. Bagrodia Plantations & Industries (P) Ltd. 252.94 KVA 250 KVA 4. The demand for the differential amount of fixed charges have been challenged in the three writ petitions on the ground that (1) The demands were made beyond the period of limitations. (2) That in cases where the connected load is higher than the transformer capacity, the fixed charges should be made on 80% of the transformer capacity and not on 100% transformer capacity, or 80% of the connecting load. The Petitioners also submitted that they are entitled to rebate of 3% on fixed charges but no such rebate was granted. The Petitioners therefore, prayed for quashing of the demand note and also prayed that the Respondents be directed to make refund. 5. The Petitioners also submitted that they are entitled to rebate of 3% on fixed charges but no such rebate was granted. The Petitioners therefore, prayed for quashing of the demand note and also prayed that the Respondents be directed to make refund. 5. So far the question of limitation is concerned, Sri S. K. Kejriwal, appearing for the Petitioners, has submitted that in view of the settled position, he is not pressing the ground of limitation. Likewise, Sri Das, appearing for the ASEB, was also fair enough to submit that the Petitioners are entitled to rebate of 3% on fixed charges, and in case these rebate has not been given, they are eligible/entitled to claim the same. In the above premises, it is, therefore, directed that the Respondent authorities shall examine and verify the claim of the Petitioners and pass appropriate orders granting them rebate of 3% on fixed charges realized. 6. Now, coming to the main controversy, as stated above, we find that in all the three cases the transformer capacity was lower/less than the connected load. In one case it was over by 2.94 KVA whereas in other two cases it was lower by 14.70 KVA and 47.64 KVA. The background/object for introducing two-tier system of energy charges was that once the ASEB/supplier agrees to supply a fixed quantity of power to the consumer, it requires to make arrangements for the same and that power is required to be reserved for the consumer so that he can utilize the same as per his requirement. However, it has been seen that in given case the consumer do not utilize their connected load and thereby cause loss to the supplier/ASEB and, hence, in order to compensate the supplier, a fixed charge is levied. Further fixed charge has been quantified at 80% of the connected load on the assumption that the entire connected load meant to be utilized by the consumer at a given point of time and, at most of the times, only a percentage of the same is utilized. Hence, to protect the interest of the customers, the fixed charges have been fixed at 80% of the connected load. 7. In cases where the transformer capacity is more than the connected load, there is no area of dispute or confusion. The customer is required to pay fixed charges at 80% of the connected load. Hence, to protect the interest of the customers, the fixed charges have been fixed at 80% of the connected load. 7. In cases where the transformer capacity is more than the connected load, there is no area of dispute or confusion. The customer is required to pay fixed charges at 80% of the connected load. The dispute in the present case has arisen because the transformer capacity was found to be less than the connected load. The Respondents, therefore, claim that in such cases 100% of the capacity of the transformer should be regarded as the parameter for claiming fixed charges. The fact that the capacity of the transformer is found below than the connected load is not due to the fault of the consumer and the consumer cannot be saddled with the liability to pay higher fixed charges on the basis of the transformer capacity. If the capacity of the transformer would have been the determining factor, nothing prevented the Respondents to provide accordingly. The matter may be viewed from Anr. angle. In case of present Petitioners, if the transformer capacity was higher, as required, their liability at the higher would have been for 224 KVA and as there is no justification to claim for 250 KVA. We, therefore, have no hesitation to conclude that so far the raising of additional demand claiming differential amount on the basis of 100% transformer capacity relating to the period from 8.9.94 to 1.9.98 is concerned, there is no basis for the same and the demands raised by ASEB on that ground are liable to be quashed, which we do hereby. 8. Now, coming to the claim of the writ Petitioners that in such exigencies the fixed charges should be limited to 80% of the transformer capacity, we find, in this regard, two (sic)ntigencies may arise. (1) Where the 80% of the connected load is also more that the transformer capacity. (2) Where 80% of the connected load is lower than the transformer capacity. 9. The question of capacity of the transfer arises only because if the transformer capacity is less and the connected load is then the supplier, because of the above (sic)aint, cannot supply more power than the capacity of the transformer. (2) Where 80% of the connected load is lower than the transformer capacity. 9. The question of capacity of the transfer arises only because if the transformer capacity is less and the connected load is then the supplier, because of the above (sic)aint, cannot supply more power than the capacity of the transformer. Hence, in a given case, where the 80% of the connected load is also found not feasible because of the capacity of the transformer, there cannot be any dispute or doubt that the ASEB is en-tided to claim fixed charges at the rate of 80% of the transformer capacity. For example, if the transformer capacity is 100 KVA and 80% of the connected load is 120 KVA, the Respondent ASEB shall be entitled to claim fixed charge at the rate of 80% of the transformer capacity. However, in cases, where 80% of the connected load is found to be below the transformer capacity, in such cases 80% of the connected load should be considered for the purpose of charging the fixed charges. For example, in a case where the connecting load is 220 KVA, 80% of the connected load will come to 176 KVA only, and if the supply of this power is possible from the existing transformer of 200 KVA, in such a situation, the consumer is not entitled to get additional benefit and the fixed charges are to be determined on the basis of 80% of the connected load. 10. In the present cases, we find that the writ Petitioner had paid fixed charges on the basis of 80% of the connected load and this 80% was below/lower than the capacity of the transformers in each of the three cases. Hence, the Petitioners are not entitled to claim refund. 11. In the result, the entire three-writ petitions stand disposed of as aforesaid.