- (1.) THE petitioners seek direction to the respondents to implement the decisions/orders of the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Mithila Area Electricity Board, contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition, and a further consequential direction to the respondents to issue fresh energy bill after giving credit of the remission allowed by the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer under orders Annexures 1, 2 and 3. The petitioners also seek quashing of the entire proceedings 5/1/2013 Page 57 Kausalaya Devi Versus State Of Bihar in Certificate case No. 8/94 - 95 before the District Certificate Officer, Begusarai initiated for recovery of the electricity dues.
(2.) THE petitioner no. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of Ata, Suji, Maida and Chokar in its flour Mills at Teghra in the District of Begusarai. Petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Director. For doing business petitioner no. 1 got an electric connection bearing No. TR - 12246/HT under H.T. agreement for contract load of 265 KVA. Being aggrieved by interrputed supply of electrical energy resulting in production losses it made a representation under Clause 13 of the H.T. agreement claiming remission for different years. It is relevant to point out at this stage that the claim for remission with respect to AMG charges for the years 1989 -90, 1990 -91 and 1991 -92 was allowed in part by the authority i.e. the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Mithila Area Electricity Board vide his memo no. 3414 dated 28.7.98. Against part rejection of the claim the petitioners preferred CWJC No. 3752 of 1995 in this Court. During the pendency of that case on 27.6.95 the petitioners filed a fresh, so called 'composite ' application making several claims including claim for remission of AMG charges for the years 1989 -90, 1990 -91 and 1991 -92 before the successor General Manager. It is this application/claim which has been allowed by the orders as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 of which the implementation is sought by the petitioners in the present case, as mentioned at the outset.
(3.) IT may be relevant to give a brief description of the claims which were the subject -matter of the application dated 27.6.95 as follows : (i) admissible relief in AMG including MD charges for the year 1992 -93, (ii) excess billing during the periods 1989 -90 to 1992 -93, (iii) excess billing during the notice period 1993 - 94, (iv) fuel surcharge on unconsumed KWH during 1989 -90 to 1992 -93, (v) interest charged on wrong billing, and (vi) review of the decision of the General Manager -cum - Chief Engineer dated 28.7.94. By annexures 1, 2 and 3 the General Manager allowed remission of Rs. 20,76,347.27 on account of AMG charges, MD charges, fuel surcharge, excess billing etc. By an -nexure 2 he allowed the claim with respect to interest on security deposit to the extent of Rs. 22, 316/ - while by An -nexure 3 some more reliefs with respect to the notice period to the tune of Rs. 6,47,209.10 paise were allowed.;