M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.)IN all these writ applications, common question of law and facts are involved and, therefore, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. In all these cases, the petitioners, besides other reliefs, prayed for quashing the order passed by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, whereby he has disposed of the claim of the petitioners under Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement.
(2.)IN CWJC No. 3280 of 1994 (R), the petitioner, namely, M/s. Pawan Biscuit Co. Pvt. Ltd. is a H.T. Consumer, having a contract demand of 190 KVA. Initially it has filed a claim for proportionate remission under Clause 13 of the High Tension Agreement for the year 1992 -1993. The petitioner claimed remission for interruption of 4968 hours, including the interruption for Sundays and holidays. The petitioner also claimed remission in KVA charges as per details of interruption submitted by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Chakradharpur. The General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer allowed proportionate remission for the interruption of the period more than 30 minutes.
In CWJC No. 1263 of 1995 (R), the petitioner -M/s. Kwality Refractories has challenged the order dated 8.5.1995, whereby its claim under Clause 13 of the agreement for 1987 -88 to 1993 -94 has been rejected. In this case also the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer disallowed the interruption of similar duration, i.e. below 30 minutes and also rejected the claim for remission in KVA charges.

(3.)IN CWJC No. 315 of 1996 (R), the petitioner -M/s. Bhagwani Product Pvt. Ltd. besides challenging the order passed under Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement also seeks a direction to the respondents to raise fresh bill after reducing the load from 250 KVA to 175 KVA and further challenged the order passed by the respondents reducing the load from 250 KVA to 200 KVA.